Is welfare inherently anti socialist?

[Jacob Cliff]

I know we believe in a society where everyone has equal access with people choosing freely if they work or not, but is unemployment benefits to people who don't work and are able not leeching off the hard work of proletarians?

[Red Star Rising]

Many of the people on benefits don't work because they are living in areas where work is scarce due to low investment. The whole "leeching off us hard-working citizens!" idea is bullshit that is spouted to maintain hatred of the poor and keep the status quo. Life on benefits is miserable, miserable, miserable.

As for whether we are opposed to benefits. No, we are not, but it's just a concession, it isn't enough to stop the colossal shitstorm that is capitalism, that can only be done through mass political mobilisation. Welfare is like halfheartedly chucking a bucket of water in the direction of a massive forest fire, it makes a minuscule difference but it's better than nothing.

That being said, there are some severe issues with the benefits system that are in the long run probably worse for the people who rely on it. But Socialists aren't exactly "opposed" to it, we want to reform it as part of the restructuring of society from a capitalist model to a communist one.

[contracycle]

Is this question about:

1) unemployment benefits ion the here and now, or

2) the notional situation in which, within a fully developed communism, a person could use resources for subsistence without ever contributing any labour back?

[Creative Destruction]

I know we believe in a society where everyone has equal access with people choosing freely if they work or not, but is unemployment benefits to people who don't work and are able not leeching off the hard work of proletarians?

No, it's not "leeching" off anything. Forget for the moment that the rich do actually pay more taxes, as a whole, than the working class does (at least this is the way it is in the United States currently) so the contention that it is "leeching" of the work of the proletarians is suspect. But leave that aside for a second. In capitalist production, there is a reserve army of labor, right? They're able workers but they are unable to find jobs. This helps keep wages relatively low for the working class, because it sets up a situation where capitalists can threaten the workers who have jobs. That's shit; but why should the people in this "reserve army" have to suffer because of this systemic process? They shouldn't be able to pay rent, eat, buy clothes, take a couple days off to go to the beach for their sanity, go to a movie or whatever? Workers should be more than willing to push for better welfare so their fellow out-of-work workers don't fucking starve, at least, while they're out of the job due primarily to the logic of the system.

[Crabbensmasher]

Welfare can act as a sort of safety mechanism against recession under bourgeois economics. Think about it - normally when a company lays off, the unemployed worker will have no purchasing power, and thus the businesses/services they frequent will not recieve their money. When they are guaranteed some sort of welfare - an unemployment insurance in this case, they are given a fraction of their purchasing power back. Money is still able to circulate through the economy, and this is conducive to growth.

That being said, I think arguing against welfare is inherently reactionary. It's against the livelihoods of the working class, plain and simple.

[The Idler]

In a society of free access, welfare (as is understood today) will be unnecessary. People won't be divided into productive and unproductive anyway.

[RedKobra]

Big question. Yes and no actually. From one perspective it is a hard won concession from the Capitalists for the workers that they dump on to the rubbish heap. The Capitalists would love nothing more than a subsistence level reserve army of labour, whilst we on the left believe that people discarded by Capitalist production deserve a decent quality of life at the very least.

Where things get complicated is that as a demand its actually pretty counter productive for us. Primarily because as yet we haven't found a way of mobilising the masses of benefit claimants to anything like the degree were they in work. The truth is workers in work and potentially in unions are far more useful to us than workers stuck on the doll.

As such I would prefer we demand full employment, but I would never demand people lose their benefits if they are out of work.