|  Home
Subscribe
A Report
from Minsk
by Valentin
Maslyukov
Globalization
on Trial:
Crisis and
Class Struggle
in East Asia
by David
McNally
|
The left has more than once heard calls for a
"third way". In decades gone by, people talked about a "third
way" between Communism and capitalism, which was social democracy. Now
that both the Communism of that period and the social democratic alternative
have both more or less died, we're beginning to hear about a new "third
way". The main exponent of this new alternative is the British Prime
Minister, Tony Blair. But there's talk of a "third way" partnership
between Blair and Clinton, or even a troika with the man who may become the
next Chancellor of Germany, the German Social-Democratic Party's Gerhard
Schroder.
MR readers know all about Clinton's third way. The best that can be said about
it is that it's completely empty of principle—which is a generous
assessment of a program that reproduces the essential principles of right-wing
neoliberalism. But since one of us has been in London this summer, we can look
at this from the British perspective for a minute, just to get the benefit of a
different angle of vision.
It has to be said, first, that, to judge by the British press, no one has been
able to get a firm grip on what Blair's third way means. There's vague talk
about finding a middle course between "market capitalism" (what other
kind is there, by the way?) and old-style socialism (read old-style social
democracy), based on a free market economy but with a dose of social justice.
But for the most part, at least until this summer, there hasn't been much
evidence of any significant departures from the first way, the Thatcherite way,
since the Labour government committed itself at the outset not to exceed the
Tories' public spending limits and showed little inclination completely to
reverse even the Tories' assault on organized labor.
In July, the finance minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, issued
a major three year plan. At first glance, it looked as if the government was
finally doing what it was elected to do, providing substantial increases in
public spending, in particular for education and health care. But on closer
inspection, things looked very different.
Take the National Health Service. The NHS, often called the flag-ship of
Britain's welfare state, has been celebrating its 50th anniversary this year.
Whatever people may have heard about it during the futile debates about health
care in the United States, it has been one of the most civilized institutions
in the capitalist world. For all its faults, it has generally provided
first-rate health care to everyone, regardless of income. And it has created a
culture among health care providers that would be totally unrecognizable in the
United States. Medical care is still treated as—and still feels
like—a public service, not, as in the United States, a profitable business
designed to line the pockets of HMOs, insurance companies, and doctors. The
Thatcher regime did what it could to destroy the NHS but was never able to go
the whole distance because this is such a deeply popular institution in the
United Kingdom.
So the Labour government inherited an NHS still alive but seriously wounded. In
fact, the promise to improve the health service was one of Labour's strongest
cards in the last election, and Gordon Brown's budget statement looked like a
fulfillment of that promise. But what was really going on?
Brown has found extra money (though, given earlier cuts, less than it appears)
in part by what the government calls the "private finance initiative"
(PFI). Put simply, this means that various projects, like the building of
hospitals (as well as roads, prisons, and schools), instead of being funded by
the public purse, will be undertaken by private enterprise, apparently leaving
the government with more money to allocate to the improvement of services.
The real result, though, may be the opposite—in ways that people in the
United States will find all too familiar: not only will the projects be more
expensive, partly because private investors have to borrow money at commercial
rates, but, of course, services will suffer in order to provide the massive
profits such investors demand. A journalist in the British paper, the Guardian,
in an article called "Cuckoos in our NHS" (July 16, 1998), reports
that in one health district the result of the PFI will be a loss of nearly 1000
doctors, nurses, and clerical staff, or 20 per cent of its workforce, and by
2003, acute-care beds in that district will be 45 per cent fewer than in 1989.
The results in other parts of the service will be comparable or worse, more
than wiping out the apparent gains offered by the government.
The NHS is one of the best things, if not the best, that the welfare state has
managed to produce—unlike anything in the United States. What's happening
to it now is a perfect example of how vulnerable such institutions are in a
capitalist system, where all social goods are inevitably subordinated to
private profit. In the long run, there's really no reliable and stable way of
humanizing capitalism, so there's really no alternative to socialism. But in
the meantime, there has to be constant and militant struggle to achieve and
preserve whatever social goods the capitalist system does allow.
|
