Welfare Trap

[Nolan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_trap


Does this theory hold water? If so, it would explain a way in which the state welfare system helps to keep working poor in their place while still keeping class consciousness and extreme poverty lower than they would be without reform.

Is there any leftist literature on this?

Discuss.

[Queercommie Girl]

The welfare state is essentially semi-progressive and semi-reactionary. It's a "double-edged sword". As Lenin pointed out, imperialist states use some of the wealth they've plundered from colonial nations to pacify their own working class by giving them some degree of welfare, in order to make workers in the West more lazy and complacent, so that their revolutionary consciousness decreases and therefore do not threaten the capitalist system fundamentally. This analysis is the theoretical basis of Third Worldism. Of course, in the subjective sense no blame is laid on the Western workers themselves, and subjectively the revolutionary potential of Western workers is not questioned. It is an evaluation of an objective situation. So if anyone thinks Third Worldism is about "attacking First World workers", either you have got it wrong or the person claiming to be a Third Worldist who told you this is following a distorted form of Third Worldism. Third Worldism does not oppose international working class unity at all. However, it does evaluate the conditions of workers in different economic backgrounds in a serious manner and don't just simplistically assume that "all workers are the same", because frankly, workers are not all the same.

However, failing to recognise the partially progressive character of the welfare state is also mistaken. If workers fall into desperate poverty in the West, they are generally speaking more likely to shift to the far-right than engage in a socialist revolution. It is wrong to assume that "the poorer the workers are, the more revolutionary they become". This correlation only holds up to a certain extent, after which it goes the opposite way. It is also partly why it was wrong for Stalin to label European Social Democracy as "social-fascist" and refuse to co-operate with them against the threat of the Nazis.

[Peter The Painter]

It turns revolutionary people into reformist people.

People do not feel exploited, they say, hey "I can not work and get money to live on", yet, thats only because the ruling class rape the third world, and exploit all workers globally.

Helping an old lady across the street does not give you the right to go out and rape somebody else.

Drugs manufacturing Tsars use the same thing, charge too much for most third world workers to afford, but, they make a good name for themselves, by giving 100,000 bottles of anti malaria tablets out, despite the fact they are made by the same people who cannot afford them, and these monsters are happy for little kids to die of treatable disease in the name of profits.

[Red Commissar]

The only thing this does not take into consideration is that it assumes the welfare state will be able to withstand conditions in capitalism.

As we've seen recently in many countries with social programs being cut, reduced, and/or privatized, it shows that there is no way to provide these things if the ruling class doesn't want it.

[Queercommie Girl]

The only thing this does not take into consideration is that it assumes the welfare state will be able to withstand conditions in capitalism.

As we've seen recently in many countries with social programs being cut, reduced, and/or privatized, it shows that there is no way to provide these things if the ruling class doesn't want it.

One reason it doesn't stand is because Western workers have become complacent about the welfare they have, they begin to think it is something intrinsic to the capitalist system, rather than the fruits of struggle.

[blake 3:17]

The Welfare Trap seems like a load of BS. There are situations where it may apply -- getting jobs while on assistance or earning a tiny amount over a minimum wage -- can cause a person to be effed over. I know a number of people forced to live on social assistance because they can't otherwise afford their HIV meds. Going up an income bracket may make people less eligible for social services.

The class argument needs to be for a total defence of social rights -- work, school, housing, decent food, health care, a clean environment.

[Queercommie Girl]

Welfare within capitalism does not make people "effete", it makes people complacent.

They begin to think welfare is something that is inherent in capitalism, rather than the result of working class struggle, therefore they no longer believe it is necessary to completely overthrow capitalism.

There is absolutely no argument against welfare-in-itself, (as if it makes people "weak" or some ridiculous rubbish like that) only against welfare-within-capitalism.

If everyone thinks they can get really good welfare within the framework of capitalism, why would they still want to overthrow it?

[Peter The Painter]

Welfare is a placebo, it makes you think your doing ok because your kind government, would never let that happen as it loves you

This is why black actavists complained of goverment loving uncle toms, who, felt they owed the government. many black youth joined the Army, befiore the draft, to serve "their nation and their god"

Its the same with white and black people on benefits, but you would think the racism endemic in the system, would rule out most black people from feeling they owed it.