Hi Marv. I am sure you have all this in mind already. But maybe worth a short moment to put down.
Perhaps there are certainly reasons why they may be directly helpful to the working class - short of what most of us would consider a true socialism. But there are also at least three reasons, why they are helpful for the capitalist class - in the "developed" world; and one more in the so-called post-colonial societies. For this purpose, to illustrate it, I am thinking largely of the Labour Government's post 1945 introduction of the Beveridge reforms leading to the so-called Welfare State. (i) Of direct benefit to the working class: In the UK, the Labour Government's takeover of the private health facilities (largely by burial societies and insurance companies, some by Churches, some by that were run largely by businesses (eg mines etc) - was of enormous benefit to the working class. As was education and schooling; housing, and social benefits. T o the ruling class all that was helpful also, in order to (i) Grant reforms to blunt revolution as the troops demobilised and were invariably - looking at the East European and USSR ferments; I forget the details but there were mutinies and what not. What better than a newly shining Labour social reformism? "Hey look Ladies & gentlemen - you wanted socialism - here it is." (ii) Get a collective burden of payment for things that a ruling class needed to be competitive in the future cut-throating that was to come - like a healthy work force, an educated work force, and somewhere to 'call a home' even if it were lousy awful council housing. Paid for by taxes - levied most on the workers, etc. But - with the appearance of "being freely given from the State". (iii) The same principle for other services that were essential for the ruling class, such as railway/roads/electricity - that could be wrapped up as a 'nice present' for the workers. All business needed that. The small private railways were clearly out of date. But investing top make a comprehensive system - "Wow how expensive. Ok let's get the "state" to build it." Certain other private industries were of use to the entire ruling class, thus why not buy out the small businesses of essential products (eg coal) and make them "nationalised" and less onerous to the other non-mining capitalist sectors? Special considerations of health to the ruling class included services such as sanitation and water (Owen Chadwick, and Engel's "Angel of death" - see his work on the English industrial revolution and on 'housing'). (iv) In newly (pseudo)-independent colonies, where the native/indigenous bourgeoisie were getting restless - but were weak having no capital - developing any industry was far easier via State" resources. It was then also painted up as 'socialism' - see for eg "Ujaama" socialism of Tanzania. Of course the metropolitan countries effectively sidelined these attempts at "independence". Cheers H -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#29705): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/29705 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/105142448/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
