Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

[planetgeli]

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.

Who is saying it was altruism? And my point is this was the single biggest 'concession' that improved quality of life for the working class. That's what comes to mind of the service user (or should). Not ideological left or anarchist positions of 'oh yeah but doctor, before you add years to my lifespan that were never possible before, can I just say that from a revolutionary perspective this wasn't done correctly blah blah blah',

This whole debate illustrates how far removed the Left are from working class lived experience.

As a side note, the Establishment were Ceaucesian out of touch with the working class in 1945. Churchill expected to win that election and there is some great footage knocking about of him being booed at rallies and not having a clue what is going on. It was a sea change of sorts in British politics, even if only short-lived. Or it was just another outright victory for the Establishment as everything is

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

What definition of mc are you using for this argument?

The definition used by messrs Cleese, Barker and Corbert.

 

[brogdale]

Who is saying it was altruism? And my point is this was the single biggest 'concession' that improved quality of life for the working class. That's what comes to mind of the service user (or should). Not ideological left or anarchist positions of 'oh yeah but doctor, before you add years to my lifespan that were never possible before, can I just say that from a revolutionary perspective this wasn't done correctly blah blah blah',

This whole debate illustrates how far removed the Left are from working class lived experience.

As a side note, the Establishment were Ceaucesian out of touch with the working class in 1945. Churchill expected to win that election and there is some great footage knocking about of him being booed at rallies and not having a clue what is going on. It was a sea change of sorts in British politics, even if only short-lived. Or it was just another outright victory for the Establishment as everything is

Wait, you saying what I "should" think as a "service user" of the remnants of the NHS?
Really?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Wait, you saying what I "should" think as a "service user" of the remnants of the NHS?
Really?

It's possible to put yourself in the shoes of a person of the 1940s, no, able to see a doctor and receive medicine for the first time in their lives? And not only that but on an equal footing with those who are richer than you - you're seeing the same doctors and receiving the same medicine.

Overthrowing capitalism it wasn't. A huge advance on what went before, it certainly was. And much better than the system proposed by the Tories? Again certainly, yes.

Isn't that enough?

ETA: And when I say 'isn't that enough?', I don't mean generally, just in this specific case, that the NHS was established that way and not another way is surely enough to be able to say it was a victory to those who advocated universalism, redistribution and fairness against those who opposed it. And let's not be in any doubt here that the tories fundamentally opposed this kind of reform.

 

[brogdale]

It's possible to put yourself in the shoes of a person of the 1940s, no, able to see a doctor and receive medicine for the first time in their lives? And not only that but on an equal footing with those who are richer than you - you're seeing the same doctors and receiving the same medicine.

Overthrowing capitalism it wasn't. A huge advance on what went before, it certainly was. And much better than the system proposed by the Tories? Again certainly, yes.

Isn't that enough?

But I wasn't aware that we were discussing whether the NHS was enough; I thought we were discussing the socio-economic and political forces that brought about the concessions of the welfare state?

 

[Elpenor]

Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion

 

[kenny g]

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.

Would be interested in you applying the thing between your ears to the point I raised above rather than spouting forth the same line ad nauseum.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion

It's relevant here because it was originally brought up as part of a claim that basically it doesn't matter if Corbyn or someone like him wins power somewhere or other as he's just another servant of capital. That's a point that's worth exploring and challenging, imo. When made about Attlee's govt, such a claim doesn't stand up. Shit, when made about the GLC in the 1980s, it doesn't stand up.

 

[two sheds]

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.

Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.

 

[brogdale]

Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.

Yeah, but the basic shape of the post-war settlement had been agreed/conceded in the first half of the war.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure that's true. There was surely a choice of the government at the time: either give concessions to the working class, or clamp down on them. They chose to make concessions.

There were always going to be concessions - not just here, across the world. Doesn't mean the same concessions would have been made regardless of who was in power.

 

[two sheds]

Yeah, but the basic shape of the post-war settlement had been agreed/conceded in the first half of the war.

True, but they could still have reneged on it, and instead clamped down on any protest - brought the army in. It might have been stupid trying to get the army to fight against people who'd just come out of the army but they could still have tried it.

The important thing to me, too, is the improvement in quality of life for millions of people - as with building council houses, welfare state, full employment, nationalized industries. They show what can be done with democratic socialism.

Saying 'ah yes well capital only did that because it benefited capital' may be true but churning it out every time the NHS is mentioned devalues the huge benefits democratic socialism brought to people after the war. Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?

 

[two sheds]

There were always going to be concessions - not just here, across the world. Doesn't mean the same concessions would have been made regardless of who was in power.

Did Stalin make concessions to the Russian people? That's more what I meant when I said the government could have clamped down.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?

Yep, and change is possible both ways, of course. Change towards democratic socialist solutions happened in the 1940s. Change towards neoliberalism has happened since the 1970s.

I think it's a trap to look back on what happened, see why it happened and think it was inevitable that it would happen like that. The socialist solutions of the 40s weren't inevitable even if some form of welfare state was. Likewise, Thatcherism wasn't inevitable. You only need to compare the size of the UK state to the size of the French state to see what a difference Thatcherism made and how a country that didn't go through that looks very different today.

 

[brogdale]

True, but they could still have reneged on it, and instead clamped down on any protest - brought the army in. It might have been stupid trying to get the army to fight against people who'd just come out of the army but they could still have tried it.

The important thing to me, too, is the improvement in quality of life for millions of people - as with building council houses, welfare state, full employment, nationalized industries. They show what can be done with democratic socialism.

Saying 'ah yes well capital only did that because it benefited capital' may be true but churning it out every time the NHS is mentioned devalues the huge benefits democratic socialism brought to people after the war. Dismissing it plays into the hands of the tories who have been dismantling it all since 1979. Why bother fighting for it if it's only capital benefiting capital?

Well, yes...but attempting an analysis of why the post-war concessions were made does not equate to dismissing their importance for our class. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that appreciating the factors that won them in the first place helps us to understand why capital now feels emboldened to renege on them and dismantle the welfare state.

 

[zahir]

Think we need a Clement Attlee’s time is up thread for this discussion

I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:

The secret deportations: how Britain betrayed the Chinese men who served the country in the war

The long read: During the second world war, Chinese merchant seamen helped keep Britain fed, fuelled and safe – and many gave their lives doing so. But from late 1945, hundreds of them who had settled in Liverpool suddenly disappeared. Now their children are piecing together the truth

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:

The secret deportations: how Britain betrayed the Chinese men who served the country in the war

The long read: During the second world war, Chinese merchant seamen helped keep Britain fed, fuelled and safe – and many gave their lives doing so. But from late 1945, hundreds of them who had settled in Liverpool suddenly disappeared. Now their children are piecing together the truth

www.theguardian.com

that and the clusterfuck that was the partition of india ought to do for most people.

 

[belboid]

I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:

The secret deportations: how Britain betrayed the Chinese men who served the country in the war

The long read: During the second world war, Chinese merchant seamen helped keep Britain fed, fuelled and safe – and many gave their lives doing so. But from late 1945, hundreds of them who had settled in Liverpool suddenly disappeared. Now their children are piecing together the truth

www.theguardian.com

He tried to divert the Windrush to Tanzania as well, to avoid a ‘colour problem’

 

[two sheds]

Well, yes...but attempting an analysis of why the post-war concessions were made does not equate to dismissing their importance for our class. Quite the contrary, I'd suggest that appreciating the factors that won them in the first place helps us to understand why capital now feels emboldened to renege on them and dismantle the welfare state.

Yes I totally agree. That's not how it's been presented on here in past discussions I've had of the Post War Social Consensus though. They've verged on contempt by a couple of posters (not many admittedly but very vocal) at just the suggestion that democratic socialism benefited the working class.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I'm happy to base my judgement on Attlee's government on this:

The secret deportations: how Britain betrayed the Chinese men who served the country in the war

The long read: During the second world war, Chinese merchant seamen helped keep Britain fed, fuelled and safe – and many gave their lives doing so. But from late 1945, hundreds of them who had settled in Liverpool suddenly disappeared. Now their children are piecing together the truth

www.theguardian.com

Attlee also tore up promises Churchill made to Polish servicemen who were unable to return home after the war that they would be granted British citizenship.

 

[Supine]

Attlee also tore up promises Churchill made to Polish servicemen who were unable to return home after the war that they would be granted British citizenship.

Not heard about that. I’m living proof that at least one polish servicemen stayed

 

[SpookyFrank]

Not heard about that. I’m living proof that at least one polish servicemen stayed

I read that claim in a book recently, but it seems not to be entirely accurate. While it's true that immediately after the war many poles faced an uncertain future and were housed in poor conditions in improvised barracks, many of them in the Scottish borders, in 1947 an act of parliament was passed allowing Polish servicemen along with wives and kids to settle as permanent citizens. Around 300,000 Poles ultimately became British citizens as a result of this.

In my part of the world there are more than a few families of Italian heritage thanks to POW's who liked it here and decided not to bother going home again after the war.

 

[planetgeli]

In my part of the world there are more than a few families of Italian heritage thanks to POW's who liked it here and decided not to bother going home again after the war.

Not sure what is your part of the world Spooky Frank but this applies to Bedford massively. It started off with PsOW but then in the 50s they needed labour for the brick works and advertised in Italian newspapers for such. Loads came over and were - get this - housed in the old POW camps.

Estimates now are that between 20-30% of the town are of Italian descent.

There are no brick works left.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Not sure what is your part of the world Spooky Frank but this applies to Bedford massively. It started off with PsOW but then in the 50s they needed labour for the brick works and advertised in Italian newspapers for such. Loads came over and were - get this - housed in the old POW camps.

Estimates now are that between 20-30% of the town are of Italian descent.

There are no brick works left.

Vegetable farms in the Lea valley were also a big employer of Italians.

 

[planetgeli]

Vegetable farms in the Lea valley were also a big employer of Italians.

Didn't know this. Either the fact or that you were from that area. Half my gfs family live there these days. I shall make sure to drop it in to conversation at the end of next month when I'm there. Cucumber central apparently.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Yep, and change is possible both ways, of course. Change towards democratic socialist solutions happened in the 1940s. Change towards neoliberalism has happened since the 1970s.

I think it's a trap to look back on what happened, see why it happened and think it was inevitable that it would happen like that. The socialist solutions of the 40s weren't inevitable even if some form of welfare state was. Likewise, Thatcherism wasn't inevitable. You only need to compare the size of the UK state to the size of the French state to see what a difference Thatcherism made and how a country that didn't go through that looks very different today.

You don't know what socialism is. State capitalism/nationalisation isn't socialism.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Would be interested in you applying the thing between your ears to the point I raised above rather than spouting forth the same line ad nauseum.

What you posted was just nonsense that isn't worth me replying to and I'd already posted about it previously really..

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I think you'll find that was down to Aneurin Bevan who served in the Atlee government actually:

Aneurin Bevan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't think this is strictly the case as there would have been no NHS without the Beveridge report. It was a response to the Beveridge report even if there were differences with how it was going to be implemented.

Beveridge Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[teqniq]

I don't think this is strictly the case as there would have been no NHS without the Beveridge report. It was a response to the Beveridge report even if there were differences with how it was going to be implemented.

Beveridge Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You can think what you like but without Bevan it wouldn't have happened.

 

[belboid]

Those differences were fucking important, they created a National health service, not a bunch of local services.

It even days as much in the Wikipedia page quoted.

[Labour] leaders opposed Beveridge's idea of a National Health Service run through local health centres and regional hospital administrations, preferring a state-run body.[10]Beveridge complained about this: "For Ernest Bevin, with his trade-union background of unskilled workers... social insurance was less important than bargaining about wages." Bevin derided the Beveridge Report as a "Social Ambulance Scheme"