Failure of the Welfare State

[Jason]

Why did the "Great Society" fail in the US? Also, has the welfare state failed in England and other 1st world nations? How can we relate this to communist thinking?

[p0is0n]

Failed in what way?

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Why did the "Great Society" fail in the US? Also, has the welfare state failed in England and other 1st world nations? How can we relate this to communist thinking?

"The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow"


Frederick Engels, The Principles of Communism, 1847

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes. They failed because they were based on the Keynesian theory of inflation; in other words, their economic aim was not for a welfare society but to keep inflation down. According to Keynes, and Phillips, there was a relation between unemployment and inflation. I.e. inflation can be kept down to a certain level, for a given level of unemployment.

Combined with the election of a Labour government and the obvious clamour for welfare post-WW1 and WW2, this led to politicians taking on the task of enacting a welfare state.

Unfortunately for them, it turned out that Keynes - and more specifically Phillips - was wrong. There isn't a simple relationship between unemployment and inflation. So the wage restraint of the 1950s and 1960s in the UK was really for nothing, as soon as costs increased (the 1973 oil crisis), the wage-price spiral started. However, it had its roots in the 1960s, so this 'oil crisis' theory of the failure of the welfare state isn't all that well founded.

Rather, it has been found (by Milton Friedman I believe!) that inflation in the current period is predicated on expected future inflation, too. So because everybody expects, even in times of wage restraint, a tiny increase in future wages, inflation today increases, hence the wage-price spiral. So by the late 1960s the system was already in trouble because the previously believed to be simple relation between unemployment and inflation had broken down, the policies were wrong and neither unemployment nor inflation were hitting targets. Welfare was broken.

The past 30-40 years in the UK have been the dismantling of the broken system, replacing it with something far more ruthless!

[Lynx]

For something that has been declared a failure, the ruling class are taking their time dismantling it...:rolleyes:

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Yes. They failed because they were based on the Keynesian theory of inflation; in other words, their economic aim was not for a welfare society but to keep inflation down. According to Keynes, and Phillips, there was a relation between unemployment and inflation. I.e. inflation can be kept down to a certain level, for a given level of unemployment.

Combined with the election of a Labour government and the obvious clamour for welfare post-WW1 and WW2, this led to politicians taking on the task of enacting a welfare state.

Unfortunately for them, it turned out that Keynes - and more specifically Phillips - was wrong. There isn't a simple relationship between unemployment and inflation. So the wage restraint of the 1950s and 1960s in the UK was really for nothing, as soon as costs increased (the 1973 oil crisis), the wage-price spiral started. However, it had its roots in the 1960s, so this 'oil crisis' theory of the failure of the welfare state isn't all that well founded.

Rather, it has been found (by Milton Friedman I believe!) that inflation in the current period is predicated on expected future inflation, too. So because everybody expects, even in times of wage restraint, a tiny increase in future wages, inflation today increases, hence the wage-price spiral. So by the late 1960s the system was already in trouble because the previously believed to be simple relation between unemployment and inflation had broken down, the policies were wrong and neither unemployment nor inflation were hitting targets. Welfare was broken.

The past 30-40 years in the UK have been the dismantling of the broken system, replacing it with something far more ruthless!
Someone who wrote extensively on this is Paul Mattick in The Limits of the Mixed Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/marx-keynes/index.htm) which I think is some great analysis and came at the tail end of the Keynesian period almost predicting the rising trend of neoliberalism.

"The high standards of living attained by large layers of the working-class in industrially-advanced countries may themselves become detrimental to capital expansion. For the maintenance of such standards under conditions of decreasing profitability requires a continuous extension of non-profitable production. This in turn implies an increasingly greater need to raise the productivity of labor, which, under present conditions, means the steady growth of unemployment. Provision for the unemployed itself becomes an increasing expense which, together with all the other expenses of “affluence,” will sooner or later tax to the utmost even the greatest economic and technical capacities."


For something that has been declared a failure, the ruling class are taking their time dismantling it...:rolleyes:
Considering how much state institutions (such as the NHS, the civil service, local councils etc) rely upon private companies to function, providing everything from janitorial support to influencing planning commissions, I'd say there is very little about the 'welfare' state that exists purely to provide a service to the people who rely upon it anymore even if it nominaly exists. Care homes are being sold or closed depending on their profitability not the people who need them, educational investments are directed towards assisting private business in expanding their research, health care reforms are insituted based on the private medical companies that bid for contracts... etc. I would say that the welfare system is not a 'failure' in only the sense that it has always been a capitalist institution existing only to preserve bourgeois interests and now its nature is changing as the nature of the bourgois interests demand it to.

[ed miliband]

the working class rejected the welfare state and the post-war compromise in the post-68 period.

[Jason]

For something that has been declared a failure, the ruling class are taking their time dismantling it...:rolleyes:

Because the welfare state is "buying off" the poor population. It serves upper class interests, even though they complain about it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

the working class rejected the welfare state and the post-war compromise in the post-68 period.

That's funny, because plenty of working class people take advantage of the welfare state (or at least, what's left of it)... unless you meant something else?

[Lowtech]

jason is an interesting fellow

"welfare state" is capitalist jargon. also, welfare is not truly a kind of "communistic" concept. welfare, as it is today, is in actuality a very poor band-aid attempting to alleviate inherent flaws of capitalism, however it is seen as a charity given to "lesser" individuals. its really quite archaic.

[piet11111]

Failed in what way?

It seems that deliberately being underfunded and reformed until its broken and ineffective somehow means that it failed on its own.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

the working class rejected the welfare state and the post-war compromise in the post-68 period.

They rejected the failures of the welfare state, as rising inflation meant that the moderate wage rises were not increasing the standard of living.

Fairly sure nobody in the 50s and early 60s was complaining all that much.

And then the picture is complicated (especially in the UK) by currency troubles, foreign policy problems, oil problems and so on. It's not simple, but i'd not argue that the welfare state was dismantled primarily because of working class pressure. I'd say working class pressure was a response to the failures of the welfare state, and then a response to the dismantling that started in the 1970s.

[ed miliband]

That's funny, because plenty of working class people take advantage of the welfare state (or at least, what's left of it)... unless you meant something else?

plenty of working class people hate their job but have little choice but to work.


They rejected the failures of the welfare state, as rising inflation meant that the moderate wage rises were not increasing the standard of living.

Fairly sure nobody in the 50s and early 60s was complaining all that much.

And then the picture is complicated (especially in the UK) by currency troubles, foreign policy problems, oil problems and so on. It's not simple, but i'd not argue that the welfare state was dismantled primarily because of working class pressure. I'd say working class pressure was a response to the failures of the welfare state, and then a response to the dismantling that started in the 1970s.

certainly the objective, economic factors you point to are correct, but there's more to it than that; the welfare state and post-war social democracy was concerned not only with granting concessions to the working class, but with incorporating them into the state structure via. unions, labour parties, and so on -- a compromise between capital and labour. the '68 period, not only in france but in britain, italy, the u.s.a., etc. saw a massive increase in struggles that frequently took place outside and against unions, against the political "representatives" of the working class, and so on. this disrupted the smooth functioning of capital accumulation and made social democracy untenable.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

plenty of working class people hate their job but have little choice but to work.

Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that working class people are, on the whole, opposed to the welfare state, even though it helps pay the bills during the inevitable periods of unemployment?

Because that's not been my experience - despite the tabloid media's "scrounger" rhetoric, the reality I find is that plenty are happy to have the welfare state to fall back on "even if some take the piss", because it's generally better to support a handful of "unemployables" than it is for lots more people to be completely fucked when out of a job, which would be the situation for many working class people sans the welfare state.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I read an article once explaining the decline, i'll see if I can find it and post it. But the author claimed that America's post world war two foreign policy of forcing laissez-faire economics on other countries undermined it's own protectionist policies at home. I'm sure there is more to it than that but that's what I remember. Let me track it down.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

[QUOTE=ed miliband;2564402]
certainly the objective, economic factors you point to are correct, but there's more to it than that; the welfare state and post-war social democracy was concerned not only with granting concessions to the working class, but with incorporating them into the state structure via. unions, labour parties, and so on -- a compromise between capital and labour.

I would argue that this all forms part of the same strategy, a move from maximising accumulation to increasing legitimacy; by granting both higher social welfare utility and democratic ('democratic', I guess) participation. It all seems part of the same story to me.


the '68 period, not only in france but in britain, italy, the u.s.a., etc. saw a massive increase in struggles that frequently took place outside and against unions, against the political "representatives" of the working class, and so on. this disrupted the smooth functioning of capital accumulation and made social democracy untenable.

Indeed, but by 1968 the legitimisation of welfare had led to cracks appearing in the ability of the system to re-produce itself (in other words, nobody was winning as inflation increased ahead of wages, growth slowed, currencies became fucked and so on), so i'm not really sure why you said it was a reaction against the welfare state per se, when it was more likely (The actions by the working class) a reaction against the failure of the welfare state to get anywhere near to the desired/expected level of social welfare they were promised in the post-war period.

Keynesianism failed, and people were pissed off about it. Capital then used the militant struggle against it in the late 60s and into the 70s to abandon the project of legitimisation and move to higher rates of accumulation, i.e. dismantling the welfare state and privatising everything. And we've seen that since then profits have rocketed as instability has risen, as private ownership of the MoP has increased and workers' rights and living standards have respectively been eroded and not kept pace.

[ed miliband]

Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that working class people are, on the whole, opposed to the welfare state, even though it helps pay the bills during the inevitable periods of unemployment?

Because that's not been my experience - despite the tabloid media's "scrounger" rhetoric, the reality I find is that plenty are happy to have the welfare state to fall back on "even if some take the piss", because it's generally better to support a handful of "unemployables" than it is for lots more people to be completely fucked when out of a job, which would be the situation for many working class people sans the welfare state.

none of this, i don't know how you read any of it into my response.

yes, "plenty of working class people take advantage of the welfare state", just as plenty of working class people go to work each day, many do both. why? because it's necessary for survival, but that doesn't stop antagonisms from existing. as aufheben put it:


... our immediate experience as proletarians of the institutions of social democracy is characteristically twofold. Consider the example of the welfare state. In the first place, the organs of the welfare state - benefits, health care, free education - present themselves simply as a means of survival. But our experience of such organs is also one of domination, control, objectification. These institutions do not belong to “us”; their processing of us often seems to be for alien and bureaucratic aims and purposes - for ourselves only as bourgeois citizens, or in the interests of “the public”, “the law” or other such abstractions.

you responded to my suggestion that the working class rejected the welfare state (and that doesn't mean welfare, health care, et al per se, but the structural framework that made these things possible) by saying that the working class still use what remains of the welfare state. that doesn't tell us anything at all.

[NGNM85]

First, it should be remembered that earlier generations of Radicals were vital in establishing the welfare state, in this country, which made an enormous difference in the lives of millions of workers. That should be a source of pride, and inspiration. Second; the welfare state did not; 'fail.' As Piet11111 pointed out; it is being gradually dismantled by the proxies of the master class. Also; the welfare state is not in such a dire state as many of our politicians, and pundits would have us believe. Social security, which, incidentally, doesn't contribute a dime to the deficit, is basically rock solid. With a few minor adjustments, it could keep going, forever. In any case; the attack on the welfare state is an attack on the working class, as such, it is the obligation of American Radicals to repel this assault.

[ed miliband]

hmm, did i just stumble over to democratic underground or something?

[NGNM85]

hmm, did i just stumble over to democratic underground or something?

You're such an infant. Like I said before; if you want to shock me; you'll say something intelligent, for once in your life.

The attack on the welfare state is an attack on the working class, thus it is the responsibility of every Socialist to oppose it.

[ed miliband]

You're such an infant. Like I said before; if you want to shock me; you'll say something intelligent, for once in your life.

The attack on the welfare state is an attack on the working class, thus it is the responsibility of every Socialist to oppose it.

yeah, i think i've posted plenty of "intelligent" things in this thread already you fucking cretin.

a fairly interesting conversation was developing until you butted in with your liberal hagiography of the welfare state (created by those wonderful radicals for the good of the working class).

[BeingAndGrime]

the dole fucking blows and is a good example of hierarchy structural whatever whatever that ed milliband was talking about. like yeah if you need it its there, but youre made to feel like such a piece of shit and treated with general incompetence that its almost not worth it

[NGNM85]

yeah, i think i've posted plenty of intelligent things in this thread already you fucking cretin.

I'm not particularly qualified on the subject of British domestic politics, so I skipped much of that. Regardless; you've never said anything particularly intelligent to me, at least; not that I can recall.

Please; dispense with your fake outrage. You can't pick a fight, and cry foul when someone takes you up on it.


a fairly interesting conversation was developing until you butted in

My statement was both topical, and substantive, and expanded on both the OP's post, and the comments made by Piet11111. That's not interrupting the conversation, that's participating in the conversation. Of course; you can't tolerate that.


with your liberal..

You're continued misuse of this word tells me you're just blowing smoke, or you don't know what it means. In fairness; you would hardly be alone, in that.


hagiography of the welfare state

I didn't say it was fantastic. It isn't. The welfare state in the US is pathetic, compared to the rest of the Western world. However; it's better than nothing. It makes a real difference in the lives of millions of workers. The lives of millions of working class Americans literally depend on these programs. If that doesn't stimulate you; then I can't fathom what attracts you to Socialism.


(created by those wonderful radicals for the good of the working class).

I didn't say the welfare state was created by Socialists. I said Socialists were instrumental in the establishment, and expansion of the welfare state. Michael Harrington, for example, a lifelong Marxist, a communist, played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Great Society reforms that helped millions of workers. This was not a gift from the benevolence of the master class, but a victory hard won for the working class. If you need to feel dismayed, or ashamed by that; that's your pathology. In any case; the fact remains; the assault on the welfare state is an attack on workers. That's something I happen to care about. It's something that every Socialist should care about.

[ed miliband]

I'm not particularly qualified on the subject of British domestic politics, so I skipped much of that. Regardless; you've never said anything particularly intelligent to me, at least; not that I can recall.

1. you don't need to be qualified on the subject of british domestic politics to have engaged with my post, since i was referring to a process that took place across much of the "west", and certainly in america. verso recently published a book on this re: the usa entitled 'rebel rank & file', a "hidden story of the 1970s insurgency from below, against employers and bureaucrats".

capital is international. yes, there are national and regional differences caused by a multitude of factors, but by and large anybody with a knowledge of the nature of capital, of class composition, and so on, does not need a detailed knowledge of say, the british legal system, to have some clue about the functioning - and failure - of the british welfare state.

2. you're right and wrong. i started to, but you are absolutely impossible to engage with. i remember once recommending you check out a book called 'black flame' which is an exhaustive history of anarchism and syndicalism from the first international onwards, and has been given much attention within the anarchist movement over the last half decade or so. you responded that it couldn't be very good because peter marshall's book is better, and anyway it's longer, so that must be proof (which is wrong anyway, when 'black flame' is fully published it will be longer than 'demanding the impossible', not that it matters...)

anyway, the point is you are so stuck in your ways, so sure that you are correct and everyone else is wrong, that you aren't really worth bothering with. it's made all the more difficult when we are arguing with two entirely different perspectives in mind. i may disagree with something, say, 'the boss' says, but we are both arguing from a communist perspective, using similar definitions and concepts, and so on. arguing with you i'm reminded of my silly days picking fights with libertarians; in the end it becomes clear that neither side will ever agree on what 'socialism' or 'communism' means, what the state is, what class is, etc. and since you are stuck with your definitions, you'll never budge. there's no convincing to be done.

oh, and then there is you're posting style. someone will make a point and then you'll pick it apart sentence by sentence, like you're fucking derrida or something. it's very difficult to then formulate a coherent argument in response without looking like you're skipping over things (as you'll see i do below...)

so no, i don't usually say anything "intelligent" to you any more, and i think things are better off that way. i'm sorry that that's the case but it is. maybe in future i won't even bother attempting to troll you.


You're continued misuse of this word tells me you're just blowing smoke, or you don't know what it means. In fairness; you would hardly be alone, in that.

and which meaning would that be? because even in mainstream discourse "liberal" in the usa and "liberal" in europe are two entirely different things. within left-wing circles there is also another use of the word "liberal" which is perhaps thrown about a bit too much, but is entirely relevant in certain case and no less "correct" than american or european definitions of the word. legalistic, moralistic, idealistic (fuck i sound like rafiq) leftism


I didn't say it was fantastic. It isn't. The welfare state in the US is pathetic, compared to the rest of the Western world. However; it's better than it was before. It makes a real difference in the lives of millions of workers. The lives of millions of working class Americans literally depend on these programs. If that doesn't stimulate you; then I can't fathom what attracts you to Socialism.

firstly, why do you always imagine that the people you are talking to are separate from the working class and/or the welfare state, or whatever. because, for example, i have used the nhs all my life and will be doing so later this week. i'm not talking about the welfare state from an ivory tower but as somebody who uses the institutions it established (or what remains of them).

the aufheben quote i posted in response to noxion is relevant once again, so i'll reproduce it:


... our immediate experience as proletarians of the institutions of social democracy is characteristically twofold. Consider the example of the welfare state. In the first place, the organs of the welfare state - benefits, health care, free education - present themselves simply as a means of survival. But our experience of such organs is also one of domination, control, objectification. These institutions do not belong to “us”; their processing of us often seems to be for alien and bureaucratic aims and purposes - for ourselves only as bourgeois citizens, or in the interests of “the public”, “the law” or other such abstractions.

welfare programs are as necessary for capital as they are for those who survive (or "depend" as you put it) on them. welfare exists to perpetuate capitalist social relations just as much as the cop or prison does.

that's why i'm a communist (not a "Socialist" - why do you always capitalise the 's'), to do away with this miserable society which condemns millions of people to surviving (or "depending") on a boring job, on the humiliation of welfare, or the danger of a life of crime; to destroy a system which is ripping apart the planet; to create a real human community, with profoundly different social relations, without money, the commodity, or the state.


I didn't say the welfare state was created by Socialists. I said Socialists were instrumental in the establishment, and expansion of the welfare state. Michael Harrington, for example, a lifelong Marxist, a communist, played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Great Society reforms that helped millions of workers. This was not a gift from the benevolence of the master class, but a victory hard won for the working class. If you need to feel dismayed, or ashamed by that; that's your pathology. In any case; the fact remains; the assault on the welfare state is an attack on workers. That's something I happen to care about. It's something that every Socialist should care about.

the harrington stuff is laughable, but it's an example of what i was talking about earlier: if you believe harrington can be accurately described as a "communist" then we are using two entirely different definitions of the word "communist". there is no point elaborating on this because we are not going to agree at all and the argument will follow a fairly predictable pattern. however i'll engage a bit.

communism is "the real movement which abolishes the present state of things", a communist struggles for a world without value and profit, commodity production, money, the state, class; harrington did not see this as a goal, and even he did his organisation was and is affiliated with the 'socialist international' a grouping that includes the british labour party (and until last year, a number of parties in governments that were overthrown as part of the arab spring). he was a social democrat, but even supposing he was a communist in some abstract sense his organisational and practical politics could not "lead" to communism.


now i'm probably not going to respond to your response, so it's up to you if you do choose to respond. that's it.

[Lynx]

From http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-middle-class-in-america-is-being-wiped-out-here-are-60-facts-that-prove-it



#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#2 As the middle class shrinks, more Americans than ever have been forced to become dependent on the federal government. Federal spending on welfare programs has reached nearly a trillion dollars a year, and that does not even count Social Security or Medicare. Welfare spending is now 16 times larger than when the "war on poverty" began.

#3 Median household income in the U.S. has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#4 The U.S. economy continues to trade good paying jobs for low paying jobs. 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.

#5 The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by more than 15 million since the turn of the century.

#6 The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.

#7 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
...

Emphasis mine - the article lists 60 facts, which confirm the effects of the real wage failing to keep up with worker productivity over the past 40 years.

[NGNM85]

From http://thetruthwins.com/archives/the-middle-class-in-america-is-being-wiped-out-here-are-60-facts-that-prove-it



Emphasis mine - the article lists 60 facts, which confirm the effects of the real wage failing to keep up with worker productivity over the past 40 years.

All of this serves to underscore how high the stakes are, and how absolutely vital it is for us to fight to defend the welfare state, and the working class.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

All of this serves to underscore how high the stakes are, and how absolutely vital it is for us to fight to defend the welfare state, and the working class.

For fuck's sake. Has it ever occurred to you that the real reason (that is to say, the reason behind why it was established by the ruling classes, not why you're defending it) for the welfare state is to subsidise the below-subsistence wages being provided by increasing numbers of businesses?

Stagnant and declining wages, increasing spending on welfare and increasing numbers of foodstamp claimants... it's obviously cheaper to keep people barely alive on benefits rather than actually paying them a living wage in the first place.

Although even then, a "living wage" wouldn't be acceptable to revolutionaries (fuck your "radicals"), unless it was high enough that the business was no longer turning a profit - where do you think profits come from?

[NGNM85]

For fuck's sake. Has it ever occurred to you that the real reason (that is to say, the reason behind why it was established by the ruling classes, not why you're defending it) for the welfare state is to subsidise the below-subsistence wages being provided by increasing numbers of businesses?

I won't say that it does not serve that function, or that it isn't a relevant factor, my problem is that, as I've said before, such statements, at best, offer what could be a very misleading portrayal of how class rule actually functions.


Stagnant and declining wages, increasing spending on welfare and increasing numbers of foodstamp claimants... it's obviously cheaper to keep people barely alive on benefits rather than actually paying them a living wage in the first place.

For private enterprise; absolutely. I should say so. It's sort of what's referred to as an; 'externality.'


Although even then, a "living wage" wouldn't be acceptable ..

Of course not. (Again; I've never suggested otherwise.) However; it would absolutely be preferable to the way than things are, right now.


to revolutionaries (fuck your "radicals"),

Not; 'my' Radicals. Just; 'Radicals.' More importantly; these words are synonyms.


unless it was high enough that the business was no longer turning a profit - where do you think profits come from?

From labor of workers, who only receive a pitiful fraction of the value they create, the majority of which is usurped by the capitalists. This is one of the primary reasons why capitalism is objectionable; because it is fundamentally exploitive. It also happens to be irrational, inefficient, and authoritarian, which are also excellent points.

[Jason]

Originally Posted by The Truth
#1 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the middle class is taking home a smaller share of the overall income pie than has ever been recorded before.

#2 As the middle class shrinks, more Americans than ever have been forced to become dependent on the federal government. Federal spending on welfare programs has reached nearly a trillion dollars a year, and that does not even count Social Security or Medicare. Welfare spending is now 16 times larger than when the "war on poverty" began.

#3 Median household income in the U.S. has fallen for four consecutive years. Overall, it has declined by over $4000 during that time span.

#4 The U.S. economy continues to trade good paying jobs for low paying jobs. 60 percent of the jobs lost during the last recession were mid-wage jobs, but 58 percent of the jobs created since then have been low wage jobs.

#5 The number of Americans living in poverty has increased by more than 15 million since the turn of the century.

#6 The number of Americans on food stamps has grown from 17 million in the year 2000 to more than 47 million today.

#7 Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.
...


Obviously gutting government programs, as Republicans want, would be a disaster. Unless they could have created jobs fast enough to make up for it.

Of course, a nation with no middle class is proof "The American Dream Doesn't Work" The dream can work for a short time, but it doesn't last. As Marx predicated, the gap grows so large that eventually revolution breaks out in 1st world nations (as if they're 1st world anymore).



Although even then, a "living wage" wouldn't be acceptable to revolutionaries (fuck your "radicals"), unless it was high enough that the business was no longer turning a profit - where do you think profits come from?


A reactionary would argue that education would give people "more than a living wage" and workers won't study. However, that argument is easily shot down. Of course, getting an education turns many into elitist pricks.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

All of this serves to underscore how high the stakes are, and how absolutely vital it is for us to fight to defend the welfare state, and the working class.

How can you be an anarchist AND want to defend the welfare STATE?

You literally don't make any sense whatsoever.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How can you be an anarchist AND want to defend the welfare STATE?

You literally don't make any sense whatsoever.

Sometimes I can't help but wonder if NGNM85 is secretly a Democrat party official trying to co-opt "radicals" into supporting them.

But unfortunately I get the feeling that they really believe the things they say.

[NGNM85]

No; it's just that you don't understand Anarchism, and you're thinking in very one-dimensional terms.

Every Anarchist worthy of the name would be philosophically obligated to defend the welfare state for several reasons. First; there's the human cost that would result from the destruction of these programs, which is quite considerable. Any Anarchist should find this sufficiently compelling, as should anyone who cares if poor children eat. Beyond this, as I've said, because a significant portion of the working class depends on the minimal welfare state, to significantly reduce, or to destroy the welfare state would substantially weaken the working class. This is part of the reason why it is under attack. It's also ideological. The ruling classes have been working long and hard to indoctrinate the working class with their values. As I've said; the Western democratic nations, have the most sophisticated propaganda systems, especially the United States. Social welfare programs carry with them concepts of fairness, and solidarity. You can't have people believing they're entitled to things like healthcare, or education, etc.That's totally anathema to the elites, whose mantra is what Adam Smith called; 'the vile maxim of the masters of mankind'; 'All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else.'

You're understanding of Anarchism is extraordinarily crude. If it was as you say; Anarchists should be championing deregulation, privatization of K-12 education, the destruction of the EPA, the FDA, etc., they'd essentially be Ron Paul 'Libertarians.' 'Starve the beast', and all that. That's not Anarchism.

Just because the state is an illegitimate institution; it does not follow that everything it does is illegitimate, or that it may not be necessary, at times, to defend, or expand parts of that institution, to protect the working class from even worse institutions, namely; corporations.

Again; in the simplest possible terms; the attack on the welfare state is an attack on the working class, and one of the sufficient conditions of being a Socialist is being commited to defending the working class, ergo; it is incumbent upon Socialists everywhere to repel this assault by the bourgeoisie.

[Jason]

The "end of the welfare state" just like the "end of immigration (from Latin America)" would cause mass revolution (in Latin America). Therefore, some Communists see it's end as something positive.

Anyhow, anything that buys off ordinary people is good news for the bourgeoisie, despite thier annoyance with government programs. Unless capitalist owners really think "trickle down" theory works. :rolleyes:

[Oswy]

Why did the "Great Society" fail in the US? Also, has the welfare state failed in England and other 1st world nations? How can we relate this to communist thinking?

The problem is to do with welfare under capitalism being welfare under capitalism. In such circumstance not only is welfare under constant attack from, or infiltration by, the capitalist class, but its very purpose is distorted - welfare under capitalism is primarily intended to control not support.

[ed miliband]

The problem is to do with welfare under capitalism being welfare under capitalism. In such circumstance not only is welfare under constant attack from, or infiltration by, the capitalist class, but its very purpose is distorted - welfare under capitalism is primarily intended to control not support.

but the existence of 'welfare' necessarily implies the existence of class society; 'welfare' won't exist in a communist world.

also, why would the capitalist class need to "infiltrate" something they administer, which they established, and which fulfils a social role that individual capitalists often can't?

[Thirsty Crow]

How can you be an anarchist AND want to defend the welfare STATE?

You literally don't make any sense whatsoever.
It's this immense (moral) pressure to be relevant and pragmatic, and most of all to achieve immediately palpable results.

[Oswy]

but the existence of 'welfare' necessarily implies the existence of class society; 'welfare' won't exist in a communist world.

also, why would the capitalist class need to "infiltrate" something they administer, which they established, and which fulfils a social role that individual capitalists often can't?

I suppose it depends on how you want to conceptualise or define 'welfare'. Under even the most effective of socialist systems there will be some whose needs, i.e. whose 'welfare', is more demanding than others, most obviously the disabled and the elderly. Otherwise I agree with you that the very term itself is strongly suggestive of inequitable social and economic arrangements which are subject to, often grudging, mitigation by a controlling class - and only in order to maintain a minimum degree of social order and avoid the embarrassment of the poor dying on the streets in front of those for whose benefit the system is arranged.

There's a tension between the capitalist class in toto administering welfare systems through the state on the one hand and the desire of capitalists to open them up to private operation for profit on the other. Capitalism is complicated by the fact that while it has a collective force and trajectory it is also subject to the internal competing aims of individual capitalists and enterprises. So, while the capitalist class - via the state - provide something called Job Seekers' Allowance (JSA) in the UK in order to limit the potential of the unemployed to turn to petty crime or social disorder, individual capitalist enterprises have lobbied, successfully in some cases, to take over, for profitable ends, specific monitoring systems of the unemployed (the so-called 'Work Programme' in which long-term unemployed people are pressured into part-time/low-pay work).

While the capitalist class rely upon welfare to maintain the social order they find themselves resenting of it - one of the 'internal contradictions' of capitalism I guess.