| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It's simply good business, good politics, to make sure that people never reach that level of desperation that might turn them anti-social. |
It's pre-programmed human nature. Not "simply good business" (though it may be that too). People care for the "less fortunate" without a thought to the long-term benefit of doing so. Indeed they do so even when contrary to long-term benefit - or the long-term benefit of the less fortunate.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Ishmael wrote: | I don't know what you mean by "first time in modern history" but I do think you need to be more explicit about what you mean -- because I expect I disagree with what you intend to express. |
Sorry...let me rephrase and elaborate slightly. - - It was the first time in the modern industrial era (I wasn't prepared to commit myself beyond that) that a state government had legislated for the centrally organised provision of welfare.
| I don't see here the beginnings of socialism. |
No neither do I. - - I had my tongue in my cheek somewhat when I wrote that. I was struck by the irony of the fact that the welfare state had its origins in the capitalist industrial revolution.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I fear my good friend Chad has taken us down a false path.
In order to understand 'modern' (well the last 500 years or so...) welfare reform, you simply have to split people into the following three groups, who receive welfare.
1)The 'elderly', 'infirm' and 'imbeciles'
2)The 'work shy' and 'slovenly'
3)The 'honest toiler' who is 'able bodied' but who is unable to find/do labour
The 1494 Vagabonds and Beggars Act was full of good sense in that it stipulated that Group (2) the 'work shy' and 'slovenly' would be put in the stocks for three days whilst Group (1) the elderly, 'infirm' and 'imbecile'... could go back to their hundreds and beg.
Fast forward to 2009, and it is obvious (even to an 'imbecile'), what has happened, we now have a 'welfare model' predicated on two groups of recipients..... when what we need is a model predicated on three ... this has led to much unfairness, numerous policy errors and much wasting of your tax payers money.
Unfortunately, because this simple problem is rooted in the very nature of the 'economic relationships' that bind us together, we are totally helpless to resolve this (but that is another story).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
I don't think I would disagree strongly with anything in your last post Nem (other than the false path thingy). But as you say the development of welfare reform over the last five hundred years is another story (and a very interesting one at that).
I was merely trying to point out that nineteenth century society was a poor fit for your model of using hillforts to force unequal economic exchange. - - (I rather like the phrase... much better than bullying or theft).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
Mick wrote: | It should not be forgotten that the above-mentioned Robert Peel was perfectly content for several million of his fellow-countrymen to die of starvation even though he was directly responsible for their welfare. But these were Irishmen...not people. |
Surely you're not blaming Robert Peel, the mill owner and parliamentary reformer, for the actions of his son's Government? - - After all, the poor chap had been dead for over a decade before the Irish potato famine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| It was the first time in the modern industrial era (I wasn't prepared to commit myself beyond that) that a state government had legislated for the centrally organised provision of welfare. |
Well, England was always comparatively industrialised, and there was the Artificers Act of 1603 and the Poor Law Act of thingummyjig and so on back to (I expect) Ine's Laws. Nemesis is good on all this sort of stuff. Nothing much ever changes in this wunnerful country of ours.
PS Sorry to get my Peels in a twist but the point is that every Peel was (and is) thoroughly enlightened when it comes to x and perfectly capable of ethnic extermination if it's a case of y. It's all in the Banality of Evil (Hannah Arendt). Both are part of the human condition, we are all capable of both at the drop of various hats and let's not forget it when pointing scornful fingers. Avoid Morality!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | ...unequal economic exchange. - - (I rather like the phrase... much better than bullying or theft). |
I think it nonsense obscured by complication.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Chad wrote: | | ...the Irish potato famine. |
Another subject I suspect invested with much mythology.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chad
In: Ramsbottom
|
|
|
|
| Ishmael wrote: | | Chad wrote: | | ...unequal economic exchange. - - (I rather like the phrase... much better than bullying or theft). |
I think it nonsense obscured by complication. |
I have to agree, if I'm being honest. - - I just didn't like to upset nemesis8. (He's such a nice chap).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| I was struck by the irony of the fact that the welfare state had its origins in the capitalist industrial revolution. |
Then you will be struck completely dumb by the fact that the welfare state actually had its origins in a Bismarkian parliamentary manoeuvre. A less capitalististic group than the Prussian Junkers it is hard to imagine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Then you will be struck completely dumb by the fact that the welfare state actually had its origins in a Bismarkian parliamentary manoeuvre. A less capitalististic group than the Prussian Junkers it is hard to imagine. |
That doesn't come as a complete shock. I studied this period back in university. But what was the state of social welfare in Britain at the time? I didn't think Bismark the first to institute such policies. They never mentioned that in school.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DPCrisp
In: Bedfordshire
|
|
|
|
| Ha you say, your model is based on "bullying" ..... How you arrived at this conclusion I don't know. |
By being told it's all about a (para)military presence, with no elucidation of this unequal exchange you speak of, I expect.
| it would be very helpful, if you could explain the geographical bias of hillforts, away in terms of your 'posh Celtic folk living on hills' thesis. |
Please see the Hillforts thread... and please do point out the dead end.
| What in heck is meant by "unequal economic exchange." Does he mean theft? |
When you find out what it is, tell me. And then when you find out why there should be any particular correlation with hillforts or the Iron Age (very much a middle age), tell me that, too.
| It's pre-programmed human nature. Not "simply good business" (though it may be that too). |
What's the difference?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Ah...Bismark and the Radical Right! It was like this: there were the National Liberals (Bismark's lot), the Catholic Centre Party and the Social Democrats. He'd smashed the Papists via the Kulturkampf (don't ask!) and now wanted to dish the Socialists.
He figured four things that nobody else had figured:
1. A wealthy country like Germany could afford to spend quite a lot on welfare
2. Germany was already spending prodigious amounts on welfare anyway in various ways (see posts above).
3. By nationalising the whole thing he not only got credit for his government but could make sure that there no gaps -- that's why it's called the welfare state.
4. Everyone was amazed because it was a right-wing government doing it rather than the socialists (even though it is mostly right wing governments that do these things, see posts above.)
It was a huge success. Not only did it turn out to be relatively cheap (insurance was a huge element after all) but everybody really did feel secure. Even though most of these benefits were available in one form or another before it felt completely different taking one's entitlement rather than being a beneficiary of charity. Something the current right rarely takes on board.
The Brits (under Asquith but driven by Lloyd George) followed a generation later and so did most (all?) European governments. Britain later on went one step further and discovered that exactly the same factors were present in the health field and that too could be safely and cheaply nationalised. And again the real difference was not in the actual provision of health but in the fact that you were entitled to it. No more having to be nice to the Lady Almoner.
The USA has lagged behind in all this because this is a states and not a national matter. So no welfare state. Because people can (and do) move between states, as they can't between Britain and Germany, it has proved both expensive and inefficient dealing with welfare claimants and the sick (not just the poor sick either). Canada is much more enlightened in these matters. As Ishmael will now confirm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan said. | By being told it's all about a (para)military presence, with no elucidation of this unequal exchange you speak of, I expect. |
Don't remember using the word "(para)military".....so you might need to rethink that.
Thanks for all the feedback. Will reread all your stuff on the hillforts thread and then I will come back with some more positive criticism of your "It's posh Celtic folk living on hills thesis".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
