The formation of the welfare state

[Ed]

Why was the welfare state in Britain and throughout the commonwealth formed? Every reform passed by the bourgouisie should be in the interests of capital. But I just can't work out how this one benefits the ruling class. Is it a simple case of the master making the slave's life a little better so that production is increased? Was it's primary function as a passifier after WW2, it certainly had that effect, but that would also indicate that the bourgouisie were worried about holding on to power? Was it to help rebuild a depleted population?  Or did the nationalisation of certain industries  mean that the costs for the bourguisie were reduced allowing them greater profits from it's use and allowing them to focus on other areas? If so how?

[DJP]

A bit of a cop-out of an answer I know, but here's a party pamphlet that came out at the time:http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/beveridge-re-organises-poverty

[HollyHead]

Prior to the introduction of the National Insurance Bill in 1911 the government of the day issued a White paper entitled Memorandum on Statutory Sickness and Invalidity Insurance in Germany. [HMSO Cd.5678 (1911)].It reflected a general concern among the ruling class that Britain was loosing out to competition from Germany – partly because social conditions there were perceived to be better for the workers and as a result they were more productive and “efficient”. It quoted an unnamed President of one of the largest German Associations of Employers:“The Insurance Laws have influenced the condition of life of the working classes in that they are free from anxiety by reason of sickness, infirmity, and accident….in many cases the workman's feeling of confidence increases his productive power and his efficiency.”Other points in favour of the proposed schemes included the following:German employers willing to bear the cost and would not wish to be without the scheme. Engineering Trades representative quoted: “…there can be no doubt that the standard of life and the efficiency of German workmen have greatly improved in recent decades.”In Electrical Engineering: “It must be admitted that a healthy working class is far more useful to industry than one that is physically enfeebled.”In the Steel Goods industry additional costs were “borne most willingly.”Chemical Industry claimed: “From the standpoint of the employers, these laws are remunerative to the extent that the efficiency fof the workers is increased, and that without the insurance laws…correspondingly higher wages would have to be paid.”Dr Kaufman (President of the German Imperial Department) speaking in 1910 – 25 years after the introduction of the first Accident Insurance Laws: “Unquestionably a contributory cause of our growing industrial pre-eminence may be seen in the successful treatment of social questions, and particularly that of industrial insurance.”Dr. F. Zahn (Director Bavarian State Statistical Office) at an international conference in The Hague, October 1910:National Insurance schemes were designed to “… awaken slumbering powers in the body politic…and by the nurture and increase of our productive efficiency to further the national economy and the welfare of the state….n the keen rivalries of nations victory will lie with …those which have at command the greatest reserves of strength and health, industrial insurance must take a leading place in this policy of social welfare.” A Conservative Case for the Welfare StateBy BRUCE BARTLETTNew York Times December 25, 2012,[Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations] At the root of much of the dispute between Democrats and Republicans over the so-called fiscal cliff is a deep disagreement over the welfare state. Republicans continue to fight a long-running war against Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other social-welfare programs that most Americans support overwhelmingly and oppose cutting.Republicans in Congress opposed the New Deal and the Great Society, but Republican presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower through George H.W. Bush accepted the legitimacy of the welfare state and sought to manage it properly and fund it adequately. When Republicans regained control of Congress in 1994 they nevertheless sought to repeal the New Deal and Great Society programs they had always opposed…. Republicans tried to abolish Social Security as well, through partial privatization during the George W. Bush administration….This is foolish and reactionary. Moreover, there are sound reasons why a conservative would support a welfare state. Historically, it has been conservatives like the 19th century chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, who established the welfare state in Europe. They did so because masses of poor people create social instability and become breeding grounds for radical movements.In postwar Europe, conservative parties were the principal supporters of welfare-state policies in order to counter efforts by socialists and communists to abolish capitalism altogether. The welfare state was devised to shave off the rough edges of capitalism and make it sustainable. Indeed, the conservative icon Winston Churchill was among the founders of the British welfare state.[Emphasis added] 

[Ed]

Thanks for the responsesDJP I realized I had read it before but forgotten all it's contents so thank you for that not a cop-out at all and very useful. It seems to confirm all of the above.Hollyhead thank you that's a superb post and an extremely helpful article.

[SocialistPunk]

Good stuff from all.Labour stalwarts who claim the credit for what's left of the welfare system in this country, should take note.It is also interesting to note the views from Republican Bruce Bartlett, that poverty breeds support for radical political movements. This country has seen the gradual reduction in working class political awareness, probably due to the relative comforts of the welfare system.Today's politicians may actually be doing capitalism a disservice in dismantling the welfare system in this country.But that would be no surprise, as generally speaking most politicians are thick as pig shit.

[ALB]

Bartlett's comments echo what Tory MP Douglas Hogg (later Lord Halisham) said in the debate on the Beveridge Report in the House of Commons in 1943 and quoted in our pamphlet Beveridge Re-Organises Poverty:

Quote:

Mr. Quintin Hogg, M. P. (Conservative) in the Debate on the Report. He said“Some of my hon. Friends seem to overlook one or two ultimate facts about social reform. The first is that if you do not give people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution….Let anyone consider the possibility of a series of dangerous industrial strikes following the present hostilities, and the effect that it would have on our industrial recovery….” (Parliamentary Debates, 17th February, 1943, Col.1818.)

Our pamphlet went on to make an interesting point against those who think that a growing socialist movement will inevitably be met by repression:

Quote:

In passing we would draw attention to the implications of the first part of Mr. Hogg’s remarks. It will be noticed that Mr. Hogg, in face of what he considers to be a threat of social revolution, does not, as has often been suggested to us, advocate such measures as closing down Parliament or rendering socialist organisations illegal, but hopes by offering sufficient bribes in the way of social reform to be able to keep away the evil day.

[Author]

Posts