Poverty and Inequality
1944-10 1944 1940s 29 pages a certain point without reducing savings to such a level that all economic activity is brought to a standstill for want of funds. Under Socialism, however, we can afford it — for three reasons. Firstly, we shall produce what the majority of people need, not luxu...
| Institution: | MCR - The Modern Records Centre, University of Warwick |
|---|---|
| Language: | English English |
| Published: |
London : C. W. Publishing Ltd.
October 1944
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10796/FAF8D9E0-5F47-4FD2-8E04-C85889323C67 http://hdl.handle.net/10796/44B3E4ED-6446-4CCC-AACB-B0BE6BED4EE0 |
| Summary: | 1944-10
1944
1940s
29 pages
a certain point without reducing savings to such a level that all economic activity is brought to a standstill for want of funds. Under Socialism, however, we can afford it — for three reasons. Firstly, we shall produce what the majority of people need, not luxuries to ratify and enrich a few. Secondly, the nation as a whole, not just a few individuals, will reap the profits of industry, and thus a large fund will be released with which to provide the necessities of life for everyone. Private property now amounts to a heavy tax upon industry. Those who possess land, houses, ships, factories, shares, bonds (not personal possessions) are able to claim a share of its proceeds in return for no positive function whatever — neither of work nor of responsibility. Thirdly, Common Ownership will make possible an increase in national income which capitalism can only bring about in the exceptional circumstances of war. The Government may succeed in reducing the intensity of booms and slumps but it cannot provide for the maximum employment of the country's productive resources so long as they are in private hands. In tacit recognition of this fact the Government's plan does not even use the phrase "full employment." But once freed from the vacillation of private enterprise, the national economy can be planned to use all the available labour and resources. Thus Common Wealth is making no mere doctrinaire assertion in claiming that the abolition of poverty can only be made possible by the common ownership of the country's wealth. VIII.—QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION. 1. — Define the poverty line :— (a) in terms of bare subsistence ; (b) in terms of an optimum standard, conducive to maximum health and efficiency. 2. "It is the children that are poor." What evidence is there of this? Discuss its implications. 3. How far does the new Education Act reduce the inferior nature of working class education? 4. What are the consequences of reserving a type of education specifically for the upper classes? Is the problem solved by an extension of the scholarship system? 5. What evidence is there that a large section of the community is suffering from malnutrition? 6. "Poverty is the chief cause of ill-health." Can this be substantiated? 7. What measure of success was achieved in the pre-war attack on slums and overcrowding? 8. What are the defects of the existing system of social security? 9. Is it true to say that the possession of private property stands in the way of the abolition of poverty?
15X/2/98/13 |
|---|---|
| Physical Description: | TEXT |