Anarchist views on the welfare state

[Lyev]

I am confused as to how cutting back the public sector (i.e. anything owned by the state) integrates whatever is being cut further into capital. Do anarchists defend the welfare state?
The con-dem alliance isn't looking to roll back the state at all. The state, as understood by most of the Anarchist tradition, isn't limited to the judical-politional-parliamentary apparatus. The entire diffuse network of manegerial and disciplinary power relations extending over the 'public' domain is the State. One could even claim that the State isn't so much an entity as it is a certain logic leading to a set of practices.

When conservatives seek to 'roll back the state', they don't 'roll back the state', they merely integrate it even further within Capital. Privatising the police (an extreme example, yes.) isn't 'rolling back the state' and neither is privatising education. The logic and structural functionality of the given institutions remains the same.Thanks

[Palingenisis]

From a Maoist persecptive the Welfare State is a double edged sword as it gives the state an ability to keep tracks on people. The less reliant we are on the state the better though in serious terms we should defend things like public healthcare, unemployment benefit and free education because the world would be much worse without them.

[PoliticalNightmare]

The welfare state is a hierarchy which the workers have been forced (by capitalism) to lean upon. Ultimately, it would be abolished but only when there is a revolutionary mindset amongst the people and a strong sense of worker's solidarity in the form of a highly structured organised format of free associations voluntary co-operating on a geographic basis to achieve common economic and social goals. Only then can we do away with the welfare state, however what the Con-Dems are trying to do is to remove basic security (benefits, public sector jobs, etc.) for the weakest before society is strong enough to abolish the hierarchies put in place by the state. In short, there wouldn't be need for benefits and jobs would be granted by free associations.

[syndicat]

Various aspects of the welfare state were concessions won through working class struggles in the past, such as Social Security in 1938 in U.S. or public transit subsidies in the '70s.

A libertarian socialist can support the benefit while also advocating going beyond the limits of the welfare state. It's like supporting your union when it's under attack, while organizing a rank and file group independent of the bureaucracy, to encourage direct action and democratize the union.

so in the case of health care, this means going beyond limited medical insurance to worker self-management of the health care industry, emphasis on preventative care, emphasis on workers in all industries controlling them so as to re-organization production in ways that better protect worker health and safety, making health provision completely free.

[Bombay]

As long as we this economic system I support the welfare state. It might not be the ultimate goal but I don't want to hand the power to private corporations. I think all anarchists should support the state unless they want to support capitalism.

[Sosa]

It should be supported and defended, but realize that this is not an end goal.

[Cloghogue Rogue]

What are people's views on Universal Basic Income? As a demand for organizations of the unemployed?

See Laurie Penny on Grit TV on Youtube (:confused: newbie with no stinkin' linkin' rights)

[NGNM85]

It depends on what you care about. If you don't give a shit about poor people, then; 'to hell with it.' However, it is impossible to be an Anarchist and take this position.

[robbo203]

There is quite a good analysis of the welfare state here http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/go%21.pdf

What was surprising was the degree of support it seemed to have enjoyed among sections of the ruling class when it was originally proposed in the UK back in the 1940s (in the Beverige Report)

[bcbm]

i defend food stamp. shit's awesome

[Quail]

I think that the welfare state should be defended in the current economic system. Without it, a lot of people (including myself) would be fucked, to put it bluntly. However, we should also realise that although it keeps people afloat, we should be fighting for more than concessions here and there. Just because we have access to free healthcare now, it doesn't mean that we've "won" the fight for decent healthcare. What we really want is healthcare run by the workers for the workers, which we can't win from the state.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard arguments, I don't recall where, that welfare strengthens the grip of the state by placing society's most vulnerable at its mercy. The implication being that it reduces militancy and increase social stability by providing a bare minimum of subsistence.

What do people here make of such arguments?

[Quail]

I've heard arguments, I don't recall where, that welfare strengthens the grip of the state by placing society's most vulnerable at its mercy. The implication being that it reduces militancy and increase social stability by providing a bare minimum of subsistence.

I've heard arguments like this discussed, and I was going to add something like that to my post but I couldn't word it properly. If the living conditions are "good enough" then people are less likely to be inspired to fight for better, so in that way a good welfare system could be detrimental to the struggle.

However, I would still rather have a welfare system in place, not least because I rely on it.

[ed miliband]

The problem is, however, that a welfare system cannot last forever. The welfare state was of use to British capitalists after WWII, it's no longer of use to them now and is being dismantled accordingly. People will not be passive when their material conditions are attacked.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I've heard arguments like this discussed, and I was going to add something like that to my post but I couldn't word it properly. If the living conditions are "good enough" then people are less likely to be inspired to fight for better, so in that way a good welfare system could be detrimental to the struggle.

However, I would still rather have a welfare system in place, not least because I rely on it.

I see your point, but what's good for you personally may not be good for the future self-empowerment of the working class. It's not an argument I support, but the reasoning seems coherent, at least as far as I can see. I'm probably missing something, however.

[Quail]

I see your point, but what's good for you personally may not be good for the future self-empowerment of the working class. It's not an argument I support, but the reasoning seems coherent, at least as far as I can see. I'm probably missing something, however.
I'd rather see people able to access healthcare rather than die in the streets, and get a basic amount of unemployment benefit rather than starve. It probably is worse for class consciousness in that people aren't in the situation where something desperately needs to be done (well, that's debateable, I suppose). To say that the welfare state is "bad" on that basis implies that you'd prefer that the working class were suffering even more because it might bring about social change quicker, which I think would be a bit of a strange position for an anarchist to take.

I think the welfare state was introduced in the first place due to threat of social unrest (although I could be wrong) so in that case it was used to pacify the working class. If it were to be taken away now, there would definitely be a lot of anger and opposition.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

The welfare state is not some kind of benign and benevolent institution, it wasn't created because the Capitalist cares. It was created in my view for two reasons:

1. Reduces militancy of the workers, if you're no longer starving, you wouldn't be as likely to want to overthrow the government/Capitalism?

2. Channels militancy into reformism, "Look at what we just got from the bosses, if only we stick to the system we can turn it into something better!"

My own tactical opinion is that you should use it as much as possible, if everyone out there claimed the welfare they rightfully deserved we could seriously weaken the state forcing them to cut back welfare (unpopular and would reduce the above two effects of the welfare state).

[ed miliband]

Also this argument ignores the amount of militancy there was throughout the sixites and (especially) seventies, the height of Britain's welfare state with all bourgeois parties supporting its existence. Yeah, people had a safety net and free healthcare, but the struggle for the workplace continued, despite Labour's nationalisation.

[NGNM85]

I see your point, but what's good for you personally may not be good for the future self-empowerment of the working class. It's not an argument I support, but the reasoning seems coherent, at least as far as I can see. I'm probably missing something, however.

What's missing, again, is that this attitude is predicated on total indifference, if not contempt, for the working class. What is the point? If your goal is help people who are struggling and make their lives better, (IE: the working class.) you can't take this position.

[IronEastBloc]

Welfare is necessary when it is presented to the society as a means with no strings attached; that is, it isn't delivered upon the promise of political votes, nor is it threatened with cuts; it must be constitutionally enshrined.

However, on the opposite side, people who are able-bodied and have no inhibitions towards work must do so, as society can't run entirely on welfare in the capitalist sense of the word that we're used to.