Doug Henwood wrote:
>
But it is entirely within the Marxian
> tradition to say that capitalism has brought with it certain social
> benefits.
>
A certain tradition within Marxism. Its not capitalism that brought the
benefits but people struggling for public health, social security etc.
For example, the public health system (now being dismantled) in Canada
has brought great social benefit. It was instituted within a capitalist
economy but it was the class struggle that made it a reality. It is the
anti-capitalist elements (i.e. collective action) within capitalism that
bring about social benefits. Capitalism has increased productivity
enormously, but it's class struggle that has distributed the fruits of
that productivity, to the extent it has, as widely as it has (in some
places).
I think Roger O is partly right that public health is part of the
reproduction of labor and thus is not funded out of surplus value.
Capitalists do know that healthy workers are more productive. However,
the public health system we have in Canada, for the time being,
supplies much more services than are needed for the bare reprodution of
the working class. People who are not part of the working class draw
health benefits too-people on welfare receive full health care and
partial dental care. Though I'm not sure public health is always
necessary for the reproduction of the working class. It depends on the
size of the reserve army and the surplus population. For example, in
colonial Africa, the colonial authorities didn't need to institute
public health measures because if workers dropped dead there was always
more to fill in.
Sam Pawlett
