Originally Posted by
Tom Collier
British capitalism was able to improve the lives of many people in the late 19th century. It was a period of much progress and physical building which puts many modern efforts to shame (see the modern attempts to improve the underground, tower blocks - well meant but turned grey after a few years - and much else). The rest of Europe and North America was preoccupied with civil wars and political problems like unification. Trade unions were able to negotiate better wages for those in stable employment and their dependents. There were "losers". Agriculture had a long depression due to cheaper imports from the Empire and beyond. The workhouse was the fate of people who were "idle" or too old to support themselves. But most saw benefits from free trade at that time.
At the end of the 19th century, competition from Germany and America in particular, led to problems. British industrial leaders cut or held wages down and extended working hours to try to put industry back into profit. The result of this was a lot of industrial conflict, which became increasingly violent. Courts made judgements which were sympathetic to the bosses, making unions liable as third parties. Similar happened in North America incidently, but for different reasons (the people's movement was mainly about rail road and bank monopolies). Germany saw the birth of social democracy. France had been through terrible reactions to the Franco Prussian War in the Communards. The result in Britain was that people saw the need for separate representation for the working class. The Labour Representation Committee became the Labour Party. People saw that when economic problems really started, it was the poor who tend to be at the sharp end, and representation could at least allow a more equal struggle. his gave rise to the Labour Party and its statist solutions as we all know and don't love it. The tariff reform movement was roundly defeated because the British come to believe in free trade so strongly. Other powers which had not built an empire extolling its virtues were more pragmatic.
I have argued against welfarism because it tends to lock the poor into a cycle and leads to the idea that they live on the sufferance of society. It may not be as grim as the workhouse but it is often as reductionist.
As you say, it would be childish to imagine that in the past the poor were heroes and the rich were villains. Victorian entrepreneurs got a lot done and it is a shame some are not around now. It would be equally childish though, I think, to imagine that there is no power relationship between various sections of society which goes beyond the economy, and who pays for what out of which pot.
Some on the forum are attempting to blame economic problems entirely on the Labour mismanagement of the economy. It is true they believed their own rhetoric about abolishing boom and bust, and thus overspent. But the underlying fact is (and I do not like to defend Blair and rown in any way) that boom and bust are still parts of the economy, as are trade ebbs and flows. To some extent the 2008 crash was the South east Asia crash in the 1990s in reverse. Countries which had been damaged by IMF interference became wise to western actions and sent the loans back again. Without Labour the country might have been in a better position, but we do have to accept that these downturns are part of the modern captialist system. Socialist a hundred years ago saw that. They would not deny that the system provided wealth - but the system provided it in a varied and inconsistent way. It was only as the 20th century became more bitter through countless wars that the "blame the rich" syndrome really took off. Socialists in the past (unlike their green successors today) wanted society to be more productive, to get rid of scarcity and not have the "all in it together" austerity that Britain has got used to as a political idea since the war.
While I think it is time to look at welfare seriously, let's remember what it was set up in response too; when the economy goes down, it tends to be the poor who get clobbered first. What the rich do philanthropically in better times, should not be a substitute for considering social justice at all times.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks