Will
the supporters, whose number must be falling daily, of the Labour
government, be cheering the latest proposal from it as an example of
how much more, in contrast to those other nasty capitalist supporting
political parties, it cares for the welfare of the people? Pensioners
excepted of course.
The
MailOnline, 15 October, posits that, ‘ Labour wants to give
millions of obese, unemployed Britons free fat-busting jabs used by
celebrities in a desperate bid to get them off the couch and 'back to
work'.
Health
Secretary Wes
Streeting is
planning to offer jobless Brits free jabs of the controversial
'miracle' weight loss drug, Ozempic.
Sir
Keir
Starmer today
backed the idea, insisting it could help ease demands on the NHS and
boost the economy.
But
the news comes despite dire warnings that some 3,000
Brits to fall ill so far this year after taking either Ozempic and
Wegovy.
Defending
the drugs, the PM told the BBC:
'I think these drugs could be very important for our economy and for
health.'
He
added: 'This drug will be very helpful to people who want to lose
weight, need to lose weight, very important for the economy so people
can get back into work.
'Very
important for the NHS because, as I've said time and again, yes, we
need more money for our NHS, but we've got to think differently.
'We've
got to reduce the pressure on the NHS. So this will help in all of
those areas.'’
‘Speaking
in the Telegraph, the Mr Streeting claimed Ozempic or Mounjaro jabs
could kickstart a major back-to-work drive and boost productivity,
with weight-related illness costing the economy £74billion a year. ‘
The
phrase originated by a Bill Clinton supporting American in 1992 still
applies; It’s the economy stupid.’
The
aim, as is that of whichever capitalist executive Committee is in
power,
is
to reduce the financial burden of the capitalist class as a whole.
The
article also notes that, ‘It
comes as the government last night confirmed that pharmaceutical
giant Lilly will pump in £279million into developing new drugs and
treatment in the UK.’ Shades
of Covid. Can we soon expect a state propaganda drive designed to
shame and demonise those who refuse to comply? Will those receiving
state benefits be threatened with the loss of them if they don’t
obey|?
The
extracts below are from an article in the Socialist
Standard, May 1915.
‘In
one of his recent utterances the leader of the Tory Party said that
political power was absolutely in the hands of ihe working class, a
condition that lent itself as a field for the demagogue. If Mr.
Lloyd George and his party could persuade the working class that they
were the friends of the poor, they might remain in office
indefinitely. The condition of the working class being the same under
either administration, it matters nothing to them which party is in
office; but the fact remains that the Chancellor has an enormous
following of workers who fervently and devoutly believe him to be the
embodiment of progress, the friend of the workers, who understands
their troubles and devises schemes to bleed vested interests for
their benefit.
When
these reforms are examined, they are easily seen to be mere
contrivances in collective economy on behalf of the class he
represents. The Chancellor himself does not attempt to conceal this
fact. The frequency and vehemence with which he advertises it reveals
what is his estimate of working class intelligence. For in many a
speech he quite openly reassures his class of his loyalty to them,
and demonstrates, in their own every-day business language, the
effectiveness of his deep laid schemes to wring yet more profit from
the working class. What other construction is it possible to place on
the following from his preface to “Dr. H. A. Walters’ Exposition
of Recent British Social Legislation”?
“No
attitude could be more short-sighted, or more paralysing in its
influence upon social policy, than that of the man who shrinks at the
immediate cost of great social reforms which aim at increasing the
vigour and efficiency of the millions by whom the country’s
material wealth is produced.”
If
the vigour and efficiency of the working class is increased, so too
is unemployment and competition. It is sheer humbug, therefore, to
say that such legislation benefits the working class as well as the
employers. He claims to be giving something to the workers but
assures his class that like “corn thrown upon the waters it will be
returned to them a hundred-fold after many days.” That is the
essence and meaning of all legislation on the lines of ninepence for
fourpence.
This
is the nature of all the reforms instituted by the executive of the
capitalist class—”putting capital into health” is the
Chancellor’s expression. Collective capital is expended through
Government departments, with the object of placing at the disposal of
individual capitalists an improved commodity on the labour
market—workers whose labour will bear richer fruit, in the shape of
surplus value. In other words, fuller and more complete exploitation.
How do the exploited benefit ?
We
are told the old methods of social reform, like the poor law, were
merely palliative, while the new method, like the Insurance Act, is
preventive as well as palliative. The lie should be apparent, for if
the working class, after the reform, produce more wealth for less
wages, or for the same sum total of wages, than before, then instead
of being preventive of poverty, it is productive of more poverty.
The
followers of the Chancellor who have been emphasising in the Press
the “economy of higher wages for agriculture,” not only in the
articles, but in the title itself, admit that such reforms operate
against the working class; or they fail to understand the meaning of
economy.
...
The workers as commodities are weighed in capitalist scales,
according to capitalist standards and ideals, on the labour market.
Supply and demand always operate against them, and when their cost of
production—or cost of living—falls likewise.
The
workers of this country had practical experience of this truth when
Free Trade was established. The Cobdenites, like their modern
prototypes, were all for cheapening the food of the people—only, as
Marx pointed out, that they might be supplied with cheaper labour
power. The wages of the working class were reduced fourteen per cent.
in commemoration of the establishment of that beneficent and
progressive measure.
The
frequency with which efficiency is being advocated in the Press and
on the platform, makes its frequent exposure necessary. Neither by
reducing the cost of living nor by increasing the national share of
the world’s market can it assist the workers. In the latter case
the working class of England, if insufficient to overstock the labour
market, can be augmented from abroad. Labour power is carried by its
owners to the place where it is in demand; and the executive of
the capitalist class in each country adopt measures to facilitate its
passage, in the same way that they increase its productivity.
The
old methods of social reform—so called—never touched the fringe
of the poverty problem (no problem at all, by the way, because
it exists in the midst of plenty). Blankets, coals, and doles only
served to prolong misery here and there. The new method, heralded
with false sentiment and yet claiming to be essentially
business-like and practical, increases the total sum of poverty. Old
or new, Tory, Liberal, or Labour, all are designed solely to stem the
tide of revolution. Lloyd George and all his satellites may warble
their sentimental love song to the workers, wooing them for their
votes, but all the crowd of political pimps and touts,
philanthropists and social reformers of every method, though
they pipe humanitarianism till they choke, have only one sentiment
for the workers—contempt.
“Social
reform is the antidote to revolution par excellence,” and no
political sect ahouts louder for the antidote than does the
fraudulent Labour Party.
“Every
party is now committed to social reform” said Mr. Philip
Snowden, and for what purpose we have shown. Is it to be supposed
that the class that lives by robbery will forego even a fraction of
their wealth or privilege, unless compelled to do so ? Can
anyone imagine a class revelling in luxury and vice, and that has so
lived for centuries, voluntarily conceding to the class they rob any
reform that would diminish their helplessness ?
There
is no record in history of any ruling class, oligarchy, or monarchy,
making any concession to a subject class, unless under compulsion.
The nature of the capitalist class is the same as all previous ruling
classes, utterly selfish and desirous of conserving its position.
“A
State without the means of some change is without the means of its
own conservation,” wrote Burke. That is the reason why every
party—with the exception of the S.P.G.B.—”is now committed to
social reform.” Capitalist society has reached that stage in its
development where the vast majority have no real interest in
conserving it. Though the knowledge they require is within their
reach, they only partially realise the possibility of successful
revolution.
There
are no reforms possible or likely of application under Capitalism,
that can improve the condition of the working class. Moreover, it is
but adding insult to injury for the capitalist class or their
representatives to promise even real reforms for the improvement of
working-class conditions. When the working class wake up they will
see that no class or section possesses the power to experiment
over their heads—either for or against them. They will use the
political power which Mr. Bonar Law says they possess to control the
forces that stand between them and the means of life. Knowing, they
will cease to be the dupes of either sentimental or practical
reformers.’
F.
F.
https://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1910s/1914/no-117-may-1914/social-reform-old-or-new/
