Welfare generosity and diversity

[Dimentio]

Do you think there is a correlation between the homogenity of a population and the solidarity between people (i.e, the willingness of those with an income to pay taxes to those with little or no income)?

With homogenity, I am referring to ethnic homogenity.

[Lynx]

Quebec is one such society. We are considered more social-democratic than the rest of Canada. Our taxes our higher, the provincial government is larger, and we have more social programs. If you earn less than 30,000 (or was it 50,000 with children?) your cost of living will be lower in Quebec than Ontario.

[Dimentio]

Do you estimate that Quebec is more or less diverse than the rest of Canada?

[LOTFW]

Socio-economic class defines one's interests in most parts of the U.S. Most people I know would rather be with people of their own class than people of their same ethnicity. It is far more important to them.

People making $150,000 a year have more in common with people making the same $$ than people making $25,000 who are the same ethnic background. At least 2nd gen, USA.

[Dimentio]

And is not ethnic background somewhat correlating to economic income?

[Reuben]

A very interesting wuestion. Of course a crude reductionist marxist would probably suggest that the extent to which welath is redistributeddepends upon nothing more than the relative power of the opposing classes. However, it is certainly obvious that the level of welfare provision dpeends on far more than that.

To asnwer your specific question, it is certainly true that there is a big division in welfare provision between europe - characteristically made up of nation states and the far mroe ethnically diverse USA. Whether this correlation indicates the kind of causation you imply is anybody;s guess. I would be keen to see more people post on this.

[Dimentio]

I am actually more interested in comparisions between the welfare programmes of different states within the US or Canada.

[Reuben]

I guess that would make far more sense since it would seperate - at least to a some extent - ethnic homogeneity from other factors.

[LOTFW]

And is not ethnic background somewhat correlating to economic income?

Doesn't matter. Once any particular person of a given ethnic background is making serious money, they leave to live in a different home, which gives them a different lifestyle, which makes their neighbors the same class they are.

[Reuben]

Its worth remembering that support for social welfare programmes does spring soley from left/socialist ideology but has many ideological bases, including nationalism. Hitler's concept of volksgermeinshaft is the most extreme example of this point. However the movement for National Efficiency which emerged in Britain around the time of the boer war - which sought to ensure that the british human stock was capable of defending Britain's empire is a more mundane and mainstream example.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:37 pm
Its worth remembering that support for social welfare programmes does spring soley from left/socialist ideology but has many ideological bases, including nationalism. Hitler's concept of volksgermeinshaft is the most extreme example of this point. However the movement for National Efficiency which emerged in Britain around the time of the boer war - which sought to ensure that the british human stock was capable of defending Britain's empire is a more mundane and mainstream example.
The welfare state in most countries was a consequence of the conservative establishment's fear for the socialists. It was Bismarck who created the modern social welfare state.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:50 pm
Do you estimate that Quebec is more or less diverse than the rest of Canada?
I believe rural Quebec is ethnically and culturally less diverse than other provinces. Montreal and Hull are exceptions, being multicultural cities. Quebec City on the other hand, is very francophone.
Newfoundland may also be less diverse; and Nunavut, where a majority are Inuit.

[Reuben]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 12, 2007 12:00 am--> (Serpent @ December 12, 2007 12:00 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 10:37 pm
Its worth remembering that support for social welfare programmes does spring soley from left/socialist ideology but has many ideological bases, including nationalism. Hitler's concept of volksgermeinshaft is the most extreme example of this point. However the movement for National Efficiency which emerged in Britain around the time of the boer war - which sought to ensure that the british human stock was capable of defending Britain's empire is a more mundane and mainstream example.
The welfare state in most countries was a consequence of the conservative establishment's fear for the socialists. It was Bismarck who created the modern social welfare state. [/b]
i would suggest - as partly evidenced by my post - thgat the foundation of welfare states is more multicausal than this. IMO seeing the emergence of welfare states as a unitary process all dating back to bismark is a bit overly simplistic.

[counterblast]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 09:42 pm

And is not ethnic background somewhat correlating to economic income?

Doesn't matter. Once any particular person of a given ethnic background is making serious money, they leave to live in a different home, which gives them a different lifestyle, which makes their neighbors the same class they are.
I think that may be an oversimplification. Race/ethnicity still plays a factor in correlation to class.

Look at some contemporary examples of white flight in America (Detroit, Cleveland, Memphis, St. Louis, ect...) and you'll discover that people of the same economic class are still largely segregated by race/ethnicity.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Reuben+December 12, 2007 01:06 am--> (Reuben @ December 12, 2007 01:06 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 12:00 am

[email protected] 11, 2007 10:37 pm
Its worth remembering that support for social welfare programmes does spring soley from left/socialist ideology but has many ideological bases, including nationalism. Hitler's concept of volksgermeinshaft is the most extreme example of this point. However the movement for National Efficiency which emerged in Britain around the time of the boer war - which sought to ensure that the british human stock was capable of defending Britain's empire is a more mundane and mainstream example.
The welfare state in most countries was a consequence of the conservative establishment's fear for the socialists. It was Bismarck who created the modern social welfare state.
i would suggest - as partly evidenced by my post - thgat the foundation of welfare states is more multicausal than this. IMO seeing the emergence of welfare states as a unitary process all dating back to bismark is a bit overly simplistic. [/b]
In continental Europe, that was the main drive. In Scandinavia, welfare was created by social democratic governments.

[LOTFW]

counterblast:

You misunderstood my comments. They had nothing to do with whether more or fewer people of a given ethnicity have x or y money.

My belief is that class is so great a factor in one's life, that it overshaddows everything else.

My argument is (to use where I live), that if a person of the majority ethnicity and a person of the minority ethnicity both win $5 million dollars, during the next 10 years of their lives they will move closer toward one another in their interests. They will look at the world similarly, and begin to protect their interests.

Where I live, there are many different ethnicities; what we call in America a "Baskin Robbins". That's also a term we use for the men or women we're attracted to. (Being Baskin Robbins means you're attracted to 'all flavors'; I don't know if that means anything to Austrailians.) The majority of the people in this very large city are pro-America, and pro-capitalism, regardless of their skin color or money. But the usual circumstance of European-Americans being the dominant culture and having most of the "power" is the case here.

My point is simply that the money one brings home a year far more dictates the choices made by the individuals than their skin color. That's all. It is of course a generalization: All discussions of welfare and ethnicity use even the simplest of generalizations (such as "most poor people want more money") in order to have a conversation about the issue.

I think what I'm saying is not a shock, and Marx's main premise: that people act in the interest of their class far more than the "interest of their ethnicity".

[Dimentio]

There are some ethnic groups who have shown a very tight-knit economic behavior in history. It is not racist to state that.

Look for example at the Jewish communities, but also at the Chinese minority in North America, and the Indian minorities in Africa, which all have achieved a higher median income than the majority population due to their higher level of cooperation.

In Indonesia for example, the Chinese minority (3%) controls 60% of the economy.

I am not stating this to attack any group, I am just pointing out that in some cases, minorities are able to rise from their status as oppressed due to ethnically based cooperation.

[Reuben]

There isa significant level of co-operation within the jewish community at the level of welfare - that is to say there are and have been for some time quite a number of jewish charitiesthrough which money is channelled from wealthier jews to jews deemed to be in need. . However I am not sure what kind of econmic co-operation you are referring to. I am also unsure as to whether it explains higher than median income. A more significant factor with regard to both the British and american-chinese community might be educational achievement.

[LSD]

Quebec is one such society. We are considered more social-democratic than the rest of Canada. Our taxes our higher, the provincial government is larger, and we have more social programs.

Except that, as provinces go, Quebec is one of the most diverse and most ethnically heterogenous.

Oh sure, there are the occasional pur laine de souche communities out there that genuinely haven't met a non-white Francophone in their life, but the great majority of Quebecois lives in one of the three urban areas you mentioned, and the rest are hardly the isolated Catholic racist hotbeds of Union Nationale wet dreams.

Given the recent "accomodations" mess, there's been a great deal of press about ethnicity in Quebec. But the reality is that the current Quebec social welfare system emerged out of left-liberal worker agitation. As did the PQ

And regardless of the bizarre tone Marois has recently adopted, the legacy of the PQ remains that of a multi-cultural movement.

And as for the original question, it would seem to me that, if anything, increasing heterogenity has promulgated social welfare networks. Although I suspect that the relationship is more correlative than causative. What has fostered "generosity", as you put it, is not the kind will of a benevolent race, but the inevitable expansion of urban reorganization.

Ethnographic changes follow urbanization, not the other way around. So while a small town can provide a small service and the mayor can look after his brother-in-law's Cattle Ranch; the real origin of modern social welfare lies in the productive cities of of the late nineteenth century industrial Revolution.

You need a large collective of workers to get a lot of work done.

And in the end, of course, demographics and economics are the same thing. It's just that the one is looking at the matter entirely ass-backwards.

[Lynx]

Rural Quebec has been described as a white nationalist's wet dream. There is a lack of tension and a high comfort level because of homogenity. It is something WN's trapped in urban, multicultural areas long for.

What goes on between the English and French in Montreal is a disgrace. As an anglophone, I would have left Quebec long ago, if that sort of tension existed in the rural area where I live. The reality of living in Quebec is too often distorted by the loons (some professional) who get themselves on TV.

Quebec City is a provincial government town, or is viewed that way by ordinary, envious tax payers who live elsewhere.

Isle aux Allumettes would be a rural version of Montreal with the linguistic balance reversed.

On the whole though, behind Hérouxville, behind imaginary veiled Muslim women voting anonymously, behind the ridiculous reasonable accommodation committee, there is a level of comfort that may not exist in equally multicultural areas. In Quebec, language is an important factor. When Francophones can live their lives entirely in french, at home and at work, they are more at ease. There are of course, worries about 'being an island in a continent full of English'.

I won't deny that urban areas are where social change gets done.

[LSD]

What goes on between the English and French in Montreal is a disgrace.

um...what exactly do you think "goes on"?

I've lived in this city for 22 years and while I've seen a whole lot of things I'd call "disgraceful", none of them were remotely related to linguistic differences.

No doubt there are crazies out there, and the OLF is a fucking joke, but between real people in ordinary life, I've never seen a single "disgrace" between francophones and anglophones.

Well, that's not strictly true. I've seen people who happened to be anglophone do disgraceful things to people who happened to be francophone, and vice versa ...but it had nothing to do with the languages they were speaking.

I honestly don't know what universe you're living in. 'Cause the kind of linguistic strife you're talking about only exists in the minds of deluded radicals and geriatric oligarchs.

Maybe you've just been reading too much of the Gazette. ;)


In Quebec, language is an important factor. When Francophones can live their lives entirely in french, at home and at work, they are more at ease.

And rightfully so!

The position of the french language in this province prior to the quiet revolution was a true "disgrace". That the vast majority of the population unable to use their own language in their own home was "disgraceful" in and of itself, but the linguistic dispaity was not only a social phenomenon but an economic one, a pillar of the bourgeois cement on power.

When Quebecois unions negotiated with their anglophone bosses, they were forced to speak in english. When they signed a contract, it was in english. When they went to court to challenge the inevitable breaches, the procedings were held, you guessed it, in english.

None of that is to say that solving the language problem will do a thing to end capitalism in Quebec or anywhere. But it's no coincidence that the end of anglophone dominance in Quebec correlates with the rise of the Quebec welfare state; or that organized labour has been such a strong proponent of francophone rights.

Obviously there have been excesses in "defending the French language", usually do to entrentched state interests getting in the way of legitimate social demands. But nonetheless, there can be no doubt that what's happened in Quebec over the past thirty years has been incredibly progressive.


Rural Quebec has been described as a white nationalist's wet dream. There is a lack of tension and a high comfort level because of homogenity. It is something WN's trapped in urban, multicultural areas long for.

Or rather it's what they think they long for. When they get there, though, they overwhelmingly find that they're still not satisfied. Even in the most racially homogenous places on earth, racists still manage to get incensed over percieved racial "injustices".

The only places with true interethnic "confort" are the multicultural ones, are the large aglomerations in which various ethnicities and cultures are able to simultaneously thrive and interact with others.

Obviously tensions can and do arise in large cities, but they are nonetheless the heart of social progress and the primary front of any succesful class struggle.

There is a reason, after all, that the Russian Revolution started in Petrograd. There's a reason that the modern gay rights movement was born and thrived in the cities. Without exageration, the future of humanity rests in the city.

Just another reason why the primitivists are so fatally wrong. :)

[Lynx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:30 am

What goes on between the English and French in Montreal is a disgrace.
um...what exactly do you think "goes on"?
In retrospect, what went on in the past was 'disgraceful', but only according to Quebec standards. What happened in Pakistan demonstrates that.

I've lived in this city for 22 years and while I've seen a whole lot of things I'd call "disgraceful", none of them were remotely related to linguistic differences.
The 'goings on' that were reported on the media were related to the nationalist agenda and the language laws. Montreal was said to be divided east and west, linguistically and politically. I remember the FLQ, the referendum(s), talk radio (who was that nut who kept calling Online with Neil McKinty, a Mr. Brosseau?). I remember Parizeau's money and ethnic vote comment. All things that upset me, but went on elsewhere.


No doubt there are crazies out there, and the OLF is a fucking joke, but between real people in ordinary life, I've never seen a single "disgrace" between francophones and anglophones.
Apart from a rock throwing incident in high school, neither have I :) You are the first Montrealer to tell me this, although I suppose as the Queen once said, "good news is no news".

I honestly don't know what universe you're living in. 'Cause the kind of linguistic strife you're talking about only exists in the minds of deluded radicals and geriatric oligarchs.
It's the professional rabble-rousers who keep - who kept, I'm living in the past - who kept appearing on TV :(

Maybe you've just been reading too much of the Gazette. ;)
We (my father and I) used to read the Gazette religiously, I only read it once in a while now. Also enjoyed the Montreal Star.


In Quebec, language is an important factor. When Francophones can live their lives entirely in french, at home and at work, they are more at ease.

And rightfully so!

The position of the french language in this province prior to the quiet revolution was a true "disgrace". That the vast majority of the population unable to use their own language in their own home was "disgraceful" in and of itself, but the linguistic dispaity was not only a social phenomenon but an economic one, a pillar of the bourgeois cement on power.

When Quebecois unions negotiated with their anglophone bosses, they were forced to speak in english. When they signed a contract, it was in english. When they went to court to challenge the inevitable breaches, the procedings were held, you guessed it, in english.

None of that is to say that solving the language problem will do a thing to end capitalism in Quebec or anywhere. But it's no coincidence that the end of anglophone dominance in Quebec correlates with the rise of the Quebec welfare state; or that organized labour has been such a strong proponent of francophone rights.

Obviously there have been excesses in "defending the French language", usually do to entrentched state interests getting in the way of legitimate social demands. But nonetheless, there can be no doubt that what's happened in Quebec over the past thirty years has been incredibly progressive.
Just goes to show what living in one place can make you blind to what is going on in another. We Quebecers have to ***** about something!!


Rural Quebec has been described as a white nationalist's wet dream. There is a lack of tension and a high comfort level because of homogenity. It is something WN's trapped in urban, multicultural areas long for.

Or rather it's what they think they long for. When they get there, though, they overwhelmingly find that they're still not satisfied. Even in the most racially homogenous places on earth, racists still manage to get incensed over percieved racial "injustices".

The only places with true interethnic "confort" are the multicultural ones, are the large aglomerations in which various ethnicities and cultures are able to simultaneously thrive and interact with others.

Obviously tensions can and do arise in large cities, but they are nonetheless the heart of social progress and the primary front of any succesful class struggle.

There is a reason, after all, that the Russian Revolution started in Petrograd. There's a reason that the modern gay rights movement was born and thrived in the cities. Without exageration, the future of humanity rests in the city.

Just another reason why the primitivists are so fatally wrong. :)
Et le Temple Solaire :o