Welfare in a Socialist State

[The Jay]

What would be the form (or lack thereof) of welfare systems in a socialistic society?

[¿Que?]

unnecessary.

[Tablo]

Yeah, welfare wouldn't exist. The whole idea of welfare would be alien to a socialist economy.

[The Jay]

Why would it be unnecessary? I had the impression that money would still be used in a socialist society until a communist one could take it's place. How would the poorest receive healthcare without assistance?

[¿Que?]

Well, then you have to be clearer. The whole "socialism as a transition to communism" is only one interpretation, and in fact, Marx never made this distinction, using the words interchangeably.

To answer the question, I think there would be welfare in a transition phase, however, it's hard to say how that would happen, specifically.

[deLarge]

Why would it be unnecessary? I had the impression that money would still be used in a socialist society until a communist one could take it's place. How would the poorest receive healthcare without assistance?

There would be no poor. Those who work would receive the benefits of their economy in full, those who can't work would receive -- I suppose -- welfare, in the form of the same. Ideally, there would be no money, resources would be managed scientifically and allocated where there is material need rather than speculative or capital demand.

[Aurora]

It depends what you mean by welfare really, unemployment would be eliminated so unemployment benefit would really be unnecessary but of course in the lower phase of communism there would be a fund deducted from the total social labour to provide for those who are unable to work, nursing homes etc etc

This sort of welfare only becomes unnecessary when labour is so productive that all can receive according to need, the higher phase of communism.

edit: also you mentioned socialist state. The only function of the state that exists in socialism is to carry out the distribution of societies products, all other functions of a state that arise from the irreconcilability of class antagonisms no longer exist as classes no longer exist, this is what Engels refers to as the state losing it's political power and becoming merely an administrative organ.

[Klaatu]

In a Socialist economy, there is no unemployment. ZERO.

Unemployment is an intrinsic property of Capitalism.

Sans Capitalism, employment can be always 100%

That is, if you lack a job, the state will employ you.

No Worker is Left Behind

[robbo203]

In a Socialist economy, there is no unemployment. ZERO.

Unemployment is an intrinsic property of Capitalism.

Sans Capitalism, employment can be always 100%

That is, if you lack a job, the state will employ you.

No Worker is Left Behind

In a socialist economy there will be no employment either. Employment - or generalised wage labour - is what is meant by capitalism so what you are deciribibng is some form of capitalist economy - state capitalism - not a socialist economy.

Employment implies that you have someone doing the employing and someone being employed. So it implies a class society, not a classless (and hence stateless) society which is what is traditionally meant by socialism - a synonym of commounism.

The idea that you can have employment without unemployment is reformist nonsense. It implies capitalism's economic rhythms can be controlled by the state. Even in the state capitalist soviet union which claimed to have eliminated unemployment there was plenty of unemployment - not just official unemployment as stated in the official yearbooks up to the 1930s but widespread disguised unemployment in which workers were registered as employees of state enterprises but oten at times had nothing to do. They appeared to be employeed but in reality were unemployed. In fact, the Soviet planning system actively encouraged this sort of built in excess labour capacity and up until the 1940/early 50s workers were forbidden by law to change jobs such was the coercive nature of the Soviet employment system. This particular policy gave rise to massive discontent, abseentism and so on and had to be modified and was eventually abandoned

[Blake's Baby]

There would be no welfare under socialism. There would probably be rationing in the transitional period before socialism is established, which might be what you mean by socialism, but isn't what many of us mean by it as Que has said.

There would be no 'socialist state'. Socialism is a classless communal society. Without property there are no classes; without classes there is no state. Therefore no classes = no 'socialist state'.

There is no 'socialst economy' either. Socialism is a critique of political economy (ie, 'who gets what in class society') so the idea of socialist 'economy' makes no sense. Socialism is the end of 'economy'. It is the establishment of society in which human needs are met. So, no need for seperate 'welfare'. Everyone, whether they can work or not, is entitled to the benefits of society by virtue of being a member of that society - ie, a human being.

[Klaatu]

In a socialist economy there will be no employment either. Employment - or generalised wage labour - is what is meant by capitalism so what you are deciribibng is some form of capitalist economy - state capitalism - not a socialist economy.

Employment implies that you have someone doing the employing and someone being employed. So it implies a class society, not a classless (and hence stateless) society which is what is traditionally meant by socialism - a synonym of commounism.

The idea that you can have employment without unemployment is reformist nonsense. It implies capitalism's economic rhythms can be controlled by the state. Even in the state capitalist soviet union which claimed to have eliminated unemployment there was plenty of unemployment - not just official unemployment as stated in the official yearbooks up to the 1930s but widespread disguised unemployment in which workers were registered as employees of state enterprises but oten at times had nothing to do. They appeared to be employeed but in reality were unemployed. In fact, the Soviet planning system actively encouraged this sort of built in excess labour capacity and up until the 1940/early 50s workers were forbidden by law to change jobs such was the coercive nature of the Soviet employment system. This particular policy gave rise to massive discontent, abseentism and so on and had to be modified and was eventually abandoned

I don't disagree that the term "employment" is along the lines of ownership or slavery. But you can also sometimes think of it as "contracting."

For example, if there are worker-owned factories/services, perhaps at times, an outsider needs to be brought in, as an expert consultant, as a helper during peak times, or just as someone needing temporary work due to travel, needing extra cash, etc. These people would be selling their time to the co-op, hence "contracting," or "employing" themselves (think of semantics here)

[Klaatu]

There would be no welfare under socialism. There would probably be rationing in the transitional period before socialism is established, which might be what you mean by socialism, but isn't what many of us mean by it as Que has said.

There would be no 'socialist state'. Socialism is a classless communal society. Without property there are no classes; without classes there is no state. Therefore no classes = no 'socialist state'.

There is no 'socialst economy' either. Socialism is a critique of political economy (ie, 'who gets what in class society') so the idea of socialist 'economy' makes no sense. Socialism is the end of 'economy'. It is the establishment of society in which human needs are met. So, no need for seperate 'welfare'. Everyone, whether they can work or not, is entitled to the benefits of society by virtue of being a member of that society - ie, a human being.

The term "economy" seems to carry capitalistic connotations with it.

But I learned in ECON 101 that the term "economy" really means "efficient usage of natural resources." As an analogy, suppose your car gets good fuel economy. That means that the car uses fuel efficiently. In fact, a Socialist system would probably use natural resources even more efficiently than a capitalist system can, because Socialists care about the land and the people (pollution, conservation, equal rights, etc) while capitalists only care about profit.

That being said, I think we can safely use the term: "Socialist Economy."

[kour]

What if you are not employed by choice? People don't need formal employment to contribute to society. Would you still get paid?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

If the working class has abolished the capitalist class system, and now collectively owns the means of production, distribution, and exchange, then it's simply about directing resources to where they're needed. It's not welfare in the way it's understood under capitalism.

[Blake's Baby]

The term "economy" seems to carry capitalistic connotations with it.

But I learned in ECON 101 that the term "economy" really means "efficient usage of natural resources." ...

Well, seems you were mis-informed (probably by Professors of Economics). Actually it means 'household management'. It has been taken to mean 'state monetary management'; it also means 'the money supply and productive capacity of a country'; a related meaning is derived from its application to different methods of organisation of production in general ('the agrarian economy'). It has then acquired a (not its primary) meaning of 'cutting costs' (which is the meaning you're ascribing to it). But no, that's not what it 'means'. It's just one of the several notions it is used to refer to: 'the German economy' doesn't mean 'the German efficient usage of natural resources' any more than 'the black economy' means 'the illegal efficient usage of natural resources'.

The use of 'natural' resources is a bit odd too, I don't know what 'unnatural' resources are. As the primary economic resource is humanity itself (ie labour power), I presume 'human' isn't here being contrasted with 'natural'. What about 'natural' v 'mechanical/technological' resources? Are these not part of the 'economy' under capitalism? So I'm quite unsure as to what 'unnatural' resources are, and therefore not counted as part of the economy.

So then the question is does the OP mean 'how would a Socialist State manage its money supply and production'? Or does the OP mean 'how would a Socialist State cut costs?' Or 'how would the Socialist state use resources?' Or 'how would the Socialist State organise production?'

As an analogy, suppose your car gets good fuel economy. That means that the car uses fuel efficiently. In fact, a Socialist system would probably use natural resources even more efficiently than a capitalist system can, because Socialists care about the land and the people (pollution, conservation, equal rights, etc) while capitalists only care about profit...

Not a great advocate of 'efficiency' as criterion for anything. There is always a cost to everytrhing. Is it more 'efficient' to ask people to leave a building or to toss a hand grenade in? One saves time but uses more resources. Which is the most 'efficient'?

Under socialism we will be deciding things on a host of criteria. 'Whether we want to' is a much better criterion for chosing than 'because it'll save us half a bucket of ------ (insert name of 'natural' resource here)'.

That being said, I think we can safely use the term: "Socialist Economy."

Good luck. I want to destroy economy. It has no use a concept outside of class society. It is about who has access to scarce resources. It has no place in discussing a post-capitalist world.

[Ocean Seal]

Why would you need welfare. In socialism you have 100% employment. Even the Soviet Union for all its flaws maintained 100% employment for decades.

[Lucretia]

So even the crippled and extreme elderly are still working?!

[Blake's Baby]

No. 100% employment is a red herring.

Would those unable to work in socialism be on 'welfare'?

Only if today children in the West are on 'welfare' because their parents feed them (I'm aware, obviously, that in a great many places, children do work, but they generally don't in bourgeois democracies). Would you define that as 'welfare'? Because it's the same thing. Families distribute resources internally (from parents who have money, to kids who are given food and shelter); under socialism, that principle would be extended to the whole of society. Yes, those who can work would end up supporting those who can't. That's ultimately called 'civilised behaviour' because we recognise that children and old people and the sick shouldn't starve just because they can't work.

[Klaatu]

Blake's Baby (quote)
____________________________________________
"Well, seems you were mis-informed (probably by Professors of Economics)."

I was "misinformed" by "Professors of Economics?" and....YOU sir, are a "Professor of Economics?" (YOUR degree is...?)
What I have considered to be common-sense logic for all of these years does not seem to be merely "misinformation" to me, sorry to say.

______________________________________________
"Actually it means "household management"

Well yes, and a good analogy! Can we possibly expand this paradigm to mean "nation management?"
That is, consider a managed national economy (so unlike the present chaotic 'as-the-wind-blows' Capitalistic Economy)
that is to say: Completely-Unmanaged-Capitalist-Economy, which is not unlike a completely unmanaged group of five-year-olds.

Here is one for you:Capitalism is like a small child: he does what he wants, but he must be kept on a very short leash, lest he get
himself into big trouble. (If you've ever raised a child, you will know what I mean!)
__________________________________________________

"It has been taken to mean 'state monetary management'; it also means 'the money supply and productive capacity of a country'"

So... you don't think "money supply and productive capacity" needs to be carefully managed in a Socialist System?
_______________________________________________
'the German economy' doesn't mean 'the German efficient usage of natural resources' any more than 'the black economy' means
'the illegal efficient usage of natural resources'. The use of 'natural' resources is a bit odd too, I don't know what 'unnatural' resources
are. About 'natural' v 'mechanical/technological' resources? Are these not part of the 'economy' under capitalism? So I'm quite unsure as to what 'unnatural' resources are, and therefore not counted as part of the economy.

¿Que Pasa? If you're "unsure of it," why mention it? I don't know what you mean either. Please ask REAL questions or make real
assessments, not sophic hyperbole.
__________________________________________

So then the question is does the OP mean 'how would a Socialist State manage its money supply and production'? Or does the OP
mean 'how would a Socialist State cut costs?' Or 'how would the Socialist state use resources?' Or 'how would the Socialist State
organize production?'

In a common-sense way?

__________________________________________
Not a great advocate of 'efficiency' as criterion for anything. There is always a cost to everything. Is it more 'efficient' to ask people
to leave a building or to toss a hand grenade in? One saves time but uses more resources. Which is the most 'efficient'?

You got me there! Which macabre scenario WOULD be more efficient?
__________________________________________

Under socialism we will be deciding things on a host of criteria.

So what ARE these criteria?
___________________________________________

Good luck. I want to destroy economy.

Goodgod... it's just a WORD. We don't even have to use "economy." Use another word if it makes you happy. Suggestions?

___________________________________________
It has no use a concept outside of class society. It is about who has access to scarce resources. It has no place in discussing a post-
capitalist world.

"Scarce," thus the NEED for efficiency? (But must we dispense of that word as well, under the Orwellian NewSpeak?)

Get rid of capitalism... YES! I agree whole-heartedly!... but we are still faced with the problem of scarcity... thus we must
economize, or save resources (since capitalists have exploited/wasted most of the low-hanging fruit on this planet....and we
must fix up this extensive damage if we are to survive into the next century)

[Blake's Baby]

No, I'm not a Professor of Economics. Economics is in essence a a pseudo-science that the bourgeoisie uses to justify its rule. Why would I want to be an expert in that?

Your definition of 'economy' doesn't even go half-way to describing what 'economy' as a term refers to. It is considerably wider in meaning than 'the efficient use of natural resources'. Or do you think 'the German economy' means 'the efficient use of natural resources in Germany'? 'the knowledge economy' means 'the efficient use of natural resources of knowledge'?

What are the 'unnatural' resources that you imply are not part of the 'natural resources' that comprise the economy? What distinction are you making between 'natural' and ...? Are they human resources? Are they mechanical or technological resources? All of these are part of the economy; what then do you consider to be 'non-natural' (therefore non-economic by your definition) resources?

'Common sense'? The common sense that says that socialism is impossible? The common sense that says we should all be socialists because it's a manifestly superior form of social organisation? You'll have to put more content into your 'common sense' I'm afraid.

'Efficiency' is a concept that I'm not happy dealing with. You are. So you tell me what is more 'efficient', it's not a concept I'm touching with a barge pole.

I don't think we do face the problem of 'scarcity'. Scarcity is a problem of capitalism not of socialism. Socialism is a post-scarcity society. So the problem doesn't exist.