Was the welfare state a gain for the working class?

[frogwoman]

I had a bit of an arguement on Saturday with somebody that was at the ICC meeting that I went to, they were saying that the welfare state, the NHS etc, weren't really gains for the working class (i didn't really understand their argument as to why not), whereas I was saying that the huge amount of social pressure after the war meant that the ruling class of the country had to introduce these "concessions" in order to prevent social unrest or prevent a revolution from taking place, and that they wouldn't have introduced something like the NHS if they hadn't been forced to.

What is the argument for saying that the social welfare system and the NHS weren't gains for the working class? Surely the NHS is an example of something that's run according to people's needs rather than profit (well originally anyway) I don't see how this isn't a good thing, or worth defending?

or have i got this wrong? Perhaps I misunderstood what the person was saying. Because surely saying that things like the NHS weren't really gains etc could justify thinking that privatisation wasn't a problem and things like that (I'm not saying the person thought that, I don't think they did) but surely that is where the argument could end up?

 

[Pickman's model]

It needs defending but I wouldn't say it was necessarily a gain for the working class as it ties people more closely to the state.

 

[frogwoman]

It needs defending but I wouldn't say it was necessarily a gain for the working class as it ties people more closely to the state.

How does it do this?

I'm not contradicting you or anything, I'm just interested? As I think I've heard this argument implied before but never really heard it explained?

 

[purenarcotic]

Well it makes people more dependent on the state to do these things, I guess. It's something done to us, we're passive recipients of it.

As Pickman's says, it needs defending as the present alternative doesn't bear thinking about really.

 

[frogwoman]

Yeah I dont think they were saying that we shouldn't try to defend it or anything (at least I hope not!) They were in the CWO btw not the ICC although I'd imagine they'd have a similar view. it is passive I suppose but surely it's still better than having to pay for private healthcare and when you go into hospital you dont want ti to be anything other than "passive"

I don't think they were arguing against the NHS or anything, but I think part of their thing is that its pointless to fight for reforms of capitalism after a certain period in history and the NHS counts as a "reform". I'm not sure though, I think it was a massive concession and they were forced to put it in place because of the threat of unrest in the years following the second world war, and that they didn't want to (and when they introduced it they still kept some concessions like allowing doctors to treat private patients). It's not really something I am that familiar with the history of but I know there was massive resistance to it among Tories etc.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Well it makes people more dependent on the state to do these things, I guess. It's something done to us, we're passive recipients of it.

Are we?

To a greater or lesser extent than people relying on patchy charitable provision both before the welfare state and in today's food banks?

To some extent, I think it depends how it's 'spun'

If social security / health care is viewed as something we're entitled to as part of the deal where we pay taxes when we can, and that it's something we have a say in how it's run via the local and national democratic processes, are we really 'passive recipients'?

The ever growing gap between the democratic processes and any say is not helpful - especially in terms of the health service where there's a great gap between the average person on the street and local health authorities / trusts and all that sort of thing.

From where I look at it, 'passive recipient' is far more akin to charity at the whim of benefactors rather than something that you're entitled to.

Of course there are those on the right who object strongly to the concept of 'entitlement' (except when it comes to the rich of course) and would like to see us go cap in hand and reliant on the goodwill of benefactors considering us 'deserving' to get anything...

 

[Cerberus]

Two things spring to mind:

1) as mentioned above - social welfare system ties people closely to the state, itself an instrument of capital (in some eyes)

2) capital has its workers and consumers nurtured, fed,housed and most importantly educated by the state, effectievly for free as our taxes are used to pay for this


I seem to remember just those two arguments from my lectures. I'm sure they can be far more elegantly illustrated than I have and doubtless there are more arguments too

 

[purenarcotic]

Are we?

To a greater or lesser extent than people relying on patchy charitable provision both before the welfare state and in today's food banks?

To some extent, I think it depends how it's 'spun'

If social security / health care is viewed as something we're entitled to as part of the deal where we pay taxes when we can, and that it's something we have a say in how it's run via the local and national democratic processes, are we really 'passive recipients'?

The ever growing gap between the democratic processes and any say is not helpful - especially in terms of the health service where there's a great gap between the average person on the street and local health authorities / trusts and all that sort of thing.

From where I look at it, 'passive recipient' is far more akin to charity at the whim of benefactors rather than something that you're entitled to.

Of course there are those on the right who object strongly to the concept of 'entitlement' (except when it comes to the rich of course) and would like to see us go cap in hand and reliant on the goodwill of benefactors considering us 'deserving' to get anything...

Perhaps passive is a bit strong a word, aye. I suppose I mean passive in terms of our present state of politics; the same old shite, parties so similar the differences are rizla paper thin etc. And the fact that that entitlement is being slowly but surely eroded away.

But yes, I see what you're saying, you could argue that there is an opportunity for there to be more of an active role for those to play. I think the whole system would need an overhaul though, I don't think what we have works any more and I'm not sure there is such a thing as the benevolent state who would be able to provide what we need and be under control.

 

[Remus Harbank]

when drafting for ww2 began doctors were horrified at the state of most recruits – both physical and psychological. One of the reasons for the NHS coming into being…

 

[frogwoman]

That's the sort of thing I'm thinking of. There were steps taken in direction during the first part of the 20th century before WWI when various forms of poor relief were replaced with unemployment benefits. Would they really have introduced something like the post war settlement had there not been huge pressure from below, all the people returning from WW2 etc, to do so, or would they have simply continued in that moderate direction?

 

[BigTom]

Were they making the argument that the welfare state etc made enough people content enough to prevent the glorious socialist revolution from taking place?

 

[frogwoman]

Were they making the argument that the welfare state etc made enough people content enough to prevent the glorious socialist revolution from taking place?

No they weren't!

 

[thedockerslad]

I think it's fair to say much of the improvements in the conditions of working class people in the 20th century were as a direct result of wars started by a different social class. Either to feed us up to fight for them, or to pacify us afterwards to prevent us removing them from their positions of power..

 

[frogwoman]

I agree but there was still massive resistance to htese measures on the part of the bourgeoisie (and even when they were introduced they were still massively toned down) which makes it a bit hard for me to accept the left-communist idea that after a certain point (I think 1910 or so) no reforms under capitalism were possible. I think surely the NHS etc count as reforms of capitalism which, while not socialist or anything lol, did deliver real benefits to working class people.

I don't think anything like that is possible now though except very very temporarily.

 

[thedockerslad]

I agree but there was still massive resistance to htese measures on the part of the bourgeoisie (and even when they were introduced they were still massively toned down) which makes it a bit hard for me to accept the left-communist idea that after a certain point (I think 1910 or so) no reforms under capitalism were possible. I think surely the NHS etc count as reforms of capitalism which, while not socialist or anything lol, did deliver real benefits to working class people.

I don't think anything like that is possible now though except very very temporarily.

I think everything is possible if you believe it is. I was watching these tories on television and you know what they are spouting the same shit they did during their last spell in power in the 80s and 90s.

Oops I seem to be going backwards but anyway:

As the proletariat grew and adopted our internationalism the capitalists become nervous in their few numbers. So they created amongst themselves a situation whereby we would and could be called upon to die for them. We allowed ourselves to be slaughtered in their killing fields, and now we get a small white cross if we are lucky..

 

[ViolentPanda]

I had a bit of an arguement on Saturday with somebody that was at the ICC meeting that I went to, they were saying that the welfare state, the NHS etc, weren't really gains for the working class (i didn't really understand their argument as to why not), whereas I was saying that the huge amount of social pressure after the war meant that the ruling class of the country had to introduce these "concessions" in order to prevent social unrest or prevent a revolution from taking place, and that they wouldn't have introduced something like the NHS if they hadn't been forced to.

What is the argument for saying that the social welfare system and the NHS weren't gains for the working class? Surely the NHS is an example of something that's run according to people's needs rather than profit (well originally anyway) I don't see how this isn't a good thing, or worth defending?

or have i got this wrong? Perhaps I misunderstood what the person was saying. Because surely saying that things like the NHS weren't really gains etc could justify thinking that privatisation wasn't a problem and things like that (I'm not saying the person thought that, I don't think they did) but surely that is where the argument could end up?

It wasn't necessarily a political gain, because it was basically taking what was offered or lumping it, rather than negotiating a "welfare" system from the ground upward.
It was a social gain in many ways, though. It meant that my diabetic great-uncle lived a bit longer, because he was no longer having to work himself to death to pay for medicines (although he'd already gone blind). It meant development of decent social housing on a wider scale than previously. It meant decent dental healthcare from cradle to grave, and minimum nutrition standards in school meals, and so much other stuff that helped people improve their health and general situation.

 

[ViolentPanda]

when drafting for ww2 began doctors were horrified at the state of most recruits – both physical and psychological. One of the reasons for the NHS coming into being…

They should have known what to expect, given that the same horror was apparently expressed at the state of recruits to the Boer wars and WW1.

 

[The39thStep]

Definitely gains but at a price of in that it is not the working class that runs them. That in itself has led to a virtual collapse of working class led self help.

 

[frogwoman]

Definitely gains but at a price of in that it is not the working class that runs them. That in itself has led to a virtual collapse of working class led self help.

thanks - can you go into a bit more detail?

before the NHS etc weren't a lot of charities and agencies devoted to "helping the poor" also run by well-meaning middle/upper class "social reformers" etc?

 

[thedockerslad]

Definitely gains but at a price of in that it is not the working class that runs them. That in itself has led to a virtual collapse of working class led self help.

What where the working class self helping themselves to before this apparent collapse?

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Yes it was a gain for the working class. Why do you think the Tories want to take it away? The NHS is the symbolic centre of the whole Welfare State. It was created by left wing and - maybe rather idealistic people who had gained positions of influence during the latter years of the war. Yes it was idealistic. That by contrast with what was happening before the war was a good thing. Check out some of the articles in Picture Post Magazine for the period during the second half of WWII. They did not want a repeat of what happened after WW! when a "Land Fit for Heroes" was promised. They wanted the real thing this time.'

There is a marvellous speech by Tony Ben that I saw in a video made at a Labour conference in the 1980s I think. He talks about the Labour Government of 1945. and says something like We thought that we could set up a Welfare State, We thought that we could nationalise major industries, We thought we could dismantle our Empire. Pause - And we did! he says on a rising tone.

 

[thedockerslad]

A

Yes it was a gain for the working class. Why do you think the Tories want to take it away? The NHS is the symbolic centre of the whole Welfare State. It was created by left wing and - maybe rather idealistic people who had gained positions of influence during the latter years of the war. Yes it was idealistic. That by contrast with what was happening before the war was a good thing. Check out some of the articles in Picture Post Magazine for the period during the second half of WWII. They did not want a repeat of what happened after WW! when a "Land Fit for Heroes" was promised. They wanted the real thing this time.'

There is a marvellous speech by Tony Ben that I saw in a video made at a Labour conference in the 1980s I think. He talks about the Labour Government of 1945. and says something like We thought that we could set up a Welfare State, We thought that we could nationalise major industries, We thought we could dismantle our Empire. Pause - And we did! he says on a rising tone.

Anything to keep the working class in their place.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I had a bit of an arguement on Saturday with somebody that was at the ICC meeting that I went to, they were saying that the welfare state, the NHS etc, weren't really gains for the working class (i didn't really understand their argument as to why not), whereas I was saying that the huge amount of social pressure after the war meant that the ruling class of the country had to introduce these "concessions" in order to prevent social unrest or prevent a revolution from taking place, and that they wouldn't have introduced something like the NHS if they hadn't been forced to.

What is the argument for saying that the social welfare system and the NHS weren't gains for the working class? Surely the NHS is an example of something that's run according to people's needs rather than profit (well originally anyway) I don't see how this isn't a good thing, or worth defending?

or have i got this wrong? Perhaps I misunderstood what the person was saying. Because surely saying that things like the NHS weren't really gains etc could justify thinking that privatisation wasn't a problem and things like that (I'm not saying the person thought that, I don't think they did) but surely that is where the argument could end up?

Something I found out recently: Winston Churchill instituted the minimum wage in Britain, setting the foundation for the welfare state.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Something I found out recently: Winston Churchill instituted the minimum wage in Britain, setting the foundation for the welfare state.

I don't think that is true. Your conclusion is also wrong. The minimum wage was not even a demand by the Labour Party in the 1990s long after Churchill was dead.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Something I found out recently: Winston Churchill instituted the minimum wage in Britain, setting the foundation for the welfare state.

I don't think that is true. Your conclusion is also wrong. The minimum wage was not even a demand by the Labour Party in the 1990s long after Churchill was dead.

sort of.

the trade boards act 1909 set up what became 'wages councils' in some industries. Not a national minimum wage.

Winston Churchill (at that time a Liberal MP) in 1906 -

It is a national evil that any class of Her Majesty’s subjects should receive less than a living wage in return for their utmost exertions… where you have what we call sweated trades, you have no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad by the worst; the worker, whose whole livelihood depends upon the industry, is undersold by the worker who only takes up the trade as a second string… where these conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration.

hmm at "setting the foundation for the welfare state", though. Yes, the Liberal government of 1906-14 arguably did lay the foundations, but not sure about this specific measure. The introduction of the Old Age Pension and the National Insurance Act seem closer.

 

[Casually Red]

the way i look at it you cant view the establishment of the NHS in isolation from other social factors of the same period, such as the nationalisation of industries and transport and the employment that guaranteed for so many communities . That created cohesive communities with a sense of solidarity and class consciousness to some degree. Those were all real gains, albeit imperfect. You had a state bearaucracy and all the rest .
They were all definitely gains because the British working class had to be disempowered, atomised and smashed to wrest them back off them . And all theyve got left is an enfeebled and teetering NHS which has creeping privatisation all over the place until the last coup de grace is administered .

 

[Pickman's model]

Fyi: there is only *one* coup de grace Casually Red

 

[Casually Red]

i know, i was simply aluding to its finality

 

[Pickman's model]

i know, i was simply aluding to its finality

A shot to the chest followed by a shot to the head often proves fatal

 

[Casually Red]

so ive heard