Was it conceived as a essential bulwark to a moribund,failing capitalism, or is it an active creator of destitution, or something to be cherished? Guardian readers discussComforting as it may be to think otherwise,the welfare state was not conceived as a gesture of munificent goodwill to the indigent, or even as a system from which we all benefit, or but as a essential bulwark to a moribund,failing capitalism (The ‘welfare state’ should be something to be proud of, 1 November). It was a preventive measure against revolution and rooted in the politics of the day. Well-educated, and well-housed and healthy workers were likely to be not only less radical but also more productive. Supported by policies aimed at maintaining full employment,the social security system was mainly intended to bridge the short gaps between periods of employment, its costs met by a system of national insurance.
There was also a measure of synergy in the system. Educated and secure workers were less likely to be unhealthy. They were even likely to be more thoughtful, and knowledgeable consumers,wary of the wiles of the marketplace and its purveyors of snake oil. So those considerable props of the welfare state – education, housing, and health and security,to which should be added the now virtually defunct legal aid – were a bargain that worked pretty well until the arrival of neoliberalism and Thatcherism in the late 1970s. Sadly, politics is more likely to succeed in the defence of the welfare state than is humanitarianism. It is those who support the future survival of capitalism who need to score behind the welfare state.
Roy Boffy
Sutton Coldfield, or West MidlandsContinue reading...
Source: guardian.co.uk