Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Jeremy Corbyn's time is up

I cringe every time people start talking about "state capitalism". The term seems to mean something different each time it is used. Perhaps something else could be used such as "capitalist statism". I'm not really going to argue about it, but if anybody wants to chuck me a link to a coherent theory then I'll read it.
 
Oh bugger. Wish i lived down south now!
Yes, there are some stark inter-regional differences but don't let that hide the equally stark intra-regional ones.

The researchers say the differences are down to poverty, insecure employment as well as reductions in welfare support and healthcare.
 
No, the benefits to the working class of good health are actual, not potential. And you are just repeating the point that the NHS benefits capital (no disagreement with that) without advancing your claim that that makes it capitalist.

As for your last sentence, oh dear. It does make it sound like you think we shouldn’t try to defend the NHS, for fear of burn out. Anything can cause burn out, so we shouldn’t fight for anything by that logic.
You don't seem to read things with the attention you think. I didn't say the benefits to the working class are potential, I said the benefits to your anti-capitalist fight are potential. They are two different things.

It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist - not necessarily in producing for that element of the state a profit as say Ford turns a profit. But capitalist in ethos, in outlook. It is a support system for capitalism, not a socialist intruder into the state.

And that's a really perverse reading of my final sentence, it's a simple fact that trying to get the nhs to stand still, trying to resist the endless attacks on it, has worn - is wearing - and will wear down good militants, good anti-capitalists. Nor all anti-capitalists obvs. It's a fight worth fighting.
 
It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist
People like this?

220px-Aneurin_Bevan_%281943%29.jpg



He was vermin all along. :( Who knew?
 
You don't seem to read things with the attention you think. I didn't say the benefits to the working class are potential, I said the benefits to your anti-capitalist fight are potential. They are two different things.
Are they, in this particular instance? The same rationale applies to both - "we are actually healthy enough to fight"
It's my contention that things constructed as part of a capitalist state by people who believe in capitalism for the benefit of capitalism are necessarily capitalist - not necessarily in producing for that element of the state a profit as say Ford turns a profit. But capitalist in ethos, in outlook. It is a support system for capitalism, not a socialist intruder into the state.
Fair enough, but once again I come back to its contradictory nature. Churchill and the tories wanted to bring in a system that would have chimed perfectly with a capitalist ethos, which is why they were opposed to Bevan's version. They wanted a system run by private doctors, they wanted health insurance. The NHS is fundamentally different, as its funded by taxation and covers people pretty much equally. It is a socialised health care system. Which is still top down and managerial and gives to much power and status to doctors, but I am unconvinced it is avowedly capitalist.
And that's a really perverse reading of my final sentence, it's a simple fact that trying to get the nhs to stand still, trying to resist the endless attacks on it, has worn - is wearing - and will wear down good militants, good anti-capitalists. Nor all anti-capitalists obvs. It's a fight worth fighting.
Okay, cool. I was just wondering what the point of that sentence was.
 
Churchill and the tories wanted to bring in a system that would have chimed perfectly with a capitalist ethos, which is why they were opposed to Bevan's version. They wanted a system run by private doctors, they wanted health insurance. The NHS is fundamentally different, as its funded by taxation and covers people pretty much equally. It is a socialised health care system. Which is still top down and managerial and gives to much power and status to doctors, but I am unconvinced it is avowedly capitalist.
It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances.

The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.
 
It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances.

The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.
If it is as you say avowedly uncapitalist I'm sure you can point to somewhere where the nhs declare that. Unless you're using your own idiosyncratic definition which is different from everyone else's. And I've not said it's bad, even capitalist society can produce good things now and again
 
You added this bit. The NHS was conceived and run in the interests of the ruling class? Presumably because it was better for the ruling class to have healthy workers? So the fire service was also a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for fires to be put out. Council housing was a capitalist venture as it was in the interests of the ruling class for workers to have safe housing. Air Traffic Control is a capitalist venture as it is in the interests of the ruling class for planes not to crash into one another.

Your line of reasoning is worthless.
Choosing aeroplane travel as an example of a simple, uncontroversial social good is certainly an interesting choice.
It's avowedly uncapitalist. It's about the least capitalist form of a health system that could possibly have been devised at that time and under those circumstances.

The rest of this is just silly revolutionism - if it isn't a full-scale revolution then any reforms are bad. It's not just silly, it's antihuman. Worth remembering what planetgeli said - it's real people feeling real benefits from these changes.
Could you point out who exactly said "the NHS is bad"? I think you might be getting confused about the distinction between "this thing is complex and contradictory" and "this thing is unequivocally bad".

Anyway, congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn on becoming Mayor of London, if that's what's happened?
 
Choosing aeroplane travel as an example of a simple, uncontroversial social good is certainly an interesting choice.

Could you point out who exactly said "the NHS is bad"? I think you might be getting confused about the distinction between "this thing is complex and contradictory" and "this thing is unequivocally bad".

Anyway, congratulations to Jeremy Corbyn on becoming Mayor of London, if that's what's happened?
Have you been reading AmateurAgitator and Pickman's model? No room for complexity or contradictory things in their thinking. 'state capitalist enterprise' was the quote from AA. I think PM said 'capitalistic'. It's total rubbish.
 
Have you been reading AmateurAgitator and Pickman's model? No room for complexity or contradictory things in their thinking. 'state capitalist enterprise' was the quote from AA. I think PM said 'capitalistic'. It's total rubbish.
have you been reading my posts?

you'll really struggle to find anywhere i've not said the nhs is a good thing. but anyone who thinks i've said capitalistic hasn't imo been paying attention.
 
I'm sure education has been getting better for a select few.
have you seen the state of successive governments, many of whose members went to most prestigious public schools followed by a sojourn at oxford or cambridge? fucking boris johnson thinks hitler won at stalingrad ffs. therese coffey went to oxford and has a phd in chemistry from university college london. but there can be few more abject members of the cabinet.
 
have you seen the state of successive governments, many of whose members went to most prestigious public schools followed by a sojourn at oxford or cambridge? fucking boris johnson thinks hitler won at stalingrad ffs.
His lack of intelligence and his insufficient interest in history probably can't be blamed on his schooling.
 
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.
Yeah I agree, that makes sense. The NHS did, in a sense, come out of the Beveridge report and as I said previously that doesn't mean there would have been absolutely no differences in how what became the NHS was implemented.
 
Back
Top Bottom