The Hidden "Socialism"

[Dean]

In referring to socialism as marx's messianistic state said to lead to communism, is it reasonable to look at present pseudodemocracies as undeveloped socialism, or even socialism under a capitalist guise?

The AnarchoCapaitalists believe that states are socialist inherantly (usually a demonization of structures that are supposedly meant to level out a playing field that they want severely uneven). Their claim is that capitalism is both an economic and political "theory" or ideology that insures that anarchy in the realm of economics and control of politics by coimpanies will basically acts to help consumers.

Without getting into discussions about the obvious flaws in this, what are your ideas in regards to the pseudo-socialist policies of many industrialized nations? Do they represent grond taken by the oppressed against the oppressors, or are they simply pacifiers that can be easily taken back without repercussion?

I tend to think myself that society evolves mch more internally than the history books treat it. I think that such policies are pacifiers, but also necessary steps in the evolution of certain societies and that people will not stand for their departure unless it is extremely slow or hidden, such as in the case of the U.S.

[redstar2000]

In my opinion, the regulations imposed on capitalist initiatives by the existing state apparatus have nothing to do with "socialism", hidden or otherwise.

In the late 19th century, when American capitalism was largely unregulated, capitalists themselves realized that the "temptation to cheat" was destructive to the successful functioning of the system itself.

Setting up trusts and cartels was one way to deal with this...but clearly more was necessary.

Which is why we have a Securities & Exchange Commission, a Federal Reserve System, etc....to keep capitalists from cutting their own throats.

The "great reforms" that created "welfare state" capitalism were introduced during a period when the working classes were both angry and active...and it was seen that some extremely radical ideas were "impacting" the masses.

Because of the high costs of those measures, they are now being dismantled because today's capitalism can no longer afford them.

In the coming decades, I expect there will be more regulation of capitalism to "save capitalists from their own folly"...but less and less in the way of "welfare".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Hit The North]

In the coming decades, I expect there will be more regulation of capitalism to "save capitalists from their own folly"...but less and less in the way of "welfare".

This, of course, will depend on the balance of class forces.

In Western Europe, despite the lurch rightwards in government economic policies, the welfare regimes have remained more or less intact. This is because state-organised welfare regimes are the principle tool by which the bourgoisie has attempted to co-opt working class support for the system.

As always, in class-struggle terms, this has been most obvious in France: whenever the State has attempted to attack "workers rights" they have met mass opposition. In the face of these strikes and demonstrations, the resolve of the State has crumbled.

Although these struggles are defensive, it demonstrates that, at least in Europe, the Bourgeoisie are more or less stuck with their welfare regimes - particularly if they want to maintain the illusion that their systems are in any way democratic.

Supporting Redstar's position, it would be mistaken to see even the best resourced welfare state as being anything other than a manifestation of social democracy and, therefore, a compromise of working class interests which find their real expression in socialism.

Should revolutionaries participate in struggles to defend welfare regimes? I say, yes, but also we should be clear that this only sharpens the contradictions of the capitalist system and that the welfare of the working class can only be secured by overthrowing it.