The role of the state in the supply, training and reproduction of labour power grew through the 20th century, reaching a peak in the long boom from the mid-1940s through to the mid-1970s, and continuing into the new period of crises which followed. All through this the "welfare state" continued to be tailored to the interests of nationally based capitals, even when the impetus for extending its role came from below, as during the Second World War, when the British Tory politician Quintin Hogg famously declared, "if you do not give the people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution" .31 The British Labour minister of the 1940s Aneurin Bevan argued that public health measures had become part of the system, "but they do not flow from it. In claiming them capitalism proudly displays medals won in battles it has lost". 32 The fact, however, is that those who formulated them-including Bevan-did so in ways that could fit in with the needs of the system.
This has important implications for the labour power that goes into such services-and for the people who supply it. There is a widespread tendency for Marxists-as well as some non-Marxists33-to insist that such labour cannot be productive since it does not produce commodities directly. But that also applies to much labour inside any capitalist enterprise, which is merely a precondition for other labour that produces the final products. It is productive as part of the labour of the "collective worker"34 in the enterprise. A fully trained carpenter or bricklayer can be many times more productive than an unskilled one; a fully trained toolmaker can do jobs an unskilled labourer is incapable of. The labour of those who train them is adding to the capacity of the collective worker to produce value. And they are exploited, since they are paid the value of their labour power, not of the training they provide. There can be a debate over exactly how the skills added by their labour fit into Marx's categories: are they to be equated with plant and equipment as a form of constant capital or as simply enhanced labour power, as variable capital?35 There are also debates between individual firms over the merits of undertaking training programmes. They may gain in the short term, but what is to prevent other firms "poaching" their skilled labour without ever having paid for its training.36 Finally, there are arguments about how to characterise the labour used to train other workers: is it "productive" or "indirectly productive" ? But there should be no doubt about its role in increasing overall potential output and productivity: it is part of the total productive labour of the firm and of the system as a whole. 37
State Spending and the System
135