Is this a valid criticism of welfare capitalist programmes?

[Stirnerian]

I'm on food stamps, and I'm poor enough that the benefits I receive are fairly generous (of course, in America my EBT card cannot be exchanged for cash money, which I'd much prefer - and not because I would want to buy drugs with them).

I'm glad to have them, and it's very possible that I'd be food insecure without them. However, I'm bothered by a fact that right-wing libertarians might point up as an example of corporate welfare in the programme: the money on my EBT card is plowed back into agribusiness and other capitalist interests. For example, I like to eat fish, and I'm sure Gordon's is pleased every time I purchase a box of their fillets with my benefits. And the supermarket I purchase them from is pleased to take it also.

If I could spend my monthly grant at a food co-operative, I'd be happy to. But I haven't got much of a choice in the matter. And I certainly believe that food corporations have a vested interest in the maintenance of the transfer benefit system.

It's very much a catch-22 for anticapitalists who depend on the liberal welfare state: it's very much a necessity for us, but the ultimate benefits are reaped by a narrow strata of capitalist benefits. The wailing and gnashing of teeth about the "welfare state" by business apologists seems much ado about nothing, as they ultimately are benefited by the system.

I would prefer to work within a socialist context than be dependent within a capitalist one.

It seems to me that anticapitalists ought to highlight the role that welfare capitalism plays in sustaining the economic structure, to differentiate themselves from social democrats.

[blake 3:17]

I believe you're absolutely correct. I'm in Canada, where we don't have food stamps so I'm reluctant to comment on that particular aspect.

In the welfare rights movements I've been a part of we fight for both higher rates and for people to spend their money where they want to -- as in the food co-op or whatever else is a priority. Social welfare often involves what we call rituals of humiliation, that is making the poor feel like shit for being poor and getting any help. At the same time I defend the welfare state because it means people don't die from starvation or lack of shelter.

[Recuperation]

Even if you were to spend it at a coop you would still be putting money back into the capitalist system, whether its the wages the coop employees are paid, the (probably small) profit margin the operation maintains and the exchange that takes place between the coop and its suppliers. Any action which takes place in the market cannot be separated from the market. This is a common game that conservatives will play when dealing with anti-capitalists. "If you hate capitalism so much, they why do you buy stuff???????", as if participation in the market was actually consensual and not something that the individual is forced to do under threat of death. It's a stupid argument and not one that is worth dwelling on. That being said most farmers markets seem to take EBT at this point, my local one actually doubles the value of EBT payments as well. So if giving money to big-capitalists is bothering you could give it to small-capitalists instead I suppose.

Anti-capitalists should feel no guilt receiving welfare benefits. The payouts should be increased and the recipients should have more flexibility on how they are able to spend it. We'll abolish welfare when we abolish the wage system, until then, enjoy.

[ComradeAllende]

I wouldn't say its a valid criticism of welfare capitalism per se; more of a critique of social provisions in modern social democracies. It's basically an argument in favor of the basic income, which most socialists tend to advocate for, but then again a UBI is perfectly (if not grudgingly) acceptable within a capitalist society.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I wouldn't say its a valid criticism of welfare capitalism per se; more of a critique of social provisions in modern social democracies. It's basically an argument in favor of the basic income, which most socialists tend to advocate for, but then again a UBI is perfectly (if not grudgingly) acceptable within a capitalist society.

Whatever "socialists" propagate worthless UBI schemes are shit socialists. What socialists are in favour of that fucking crap? Who was it again was in favour of it--Milton Friedman, that renowned socialist? Or was it Hayek? I constantly mix up which of those tossers was big on basic income, but it was one of them.

UBI is nothing but a capitalist state effort to further demolish what of social welfare still remain from the long-dead era of social-democracy and save on expenditure; take for example that horrendous Finnish plan, the intention of which is the ultimate abolition of other benefits--this goes also for the recently discussed equally revolting shitty plan for New Zeeland. In both cases these "basic incomes" are also extremely low. How the hell this austerity project of Austrian economists became a pet project of the stupid liberal left is a fucking mystery.

[ckaihatsu]

---

The right wing Basic Income agenda, however, sets its sights on more than cutting benefit levels for people in poverty and depressing the wages of the lowest paid workers. Potentially, it is a means to gut social programs and to decimate the workforce that delivers them. The notion is to use the basic payment to advance the pace of privatization enormously. This kind of payment would replace public services and all who received it would become customers shopping for their social needs in the private market. Not just income support systems, but public housing, healthcare, education and transportation are threatened by the parsimonious universal payment envisaged by free market Basic Income.

http://www.socialistproject.ca/bullet/1241.php

[Stirnerian]

Yeah. Speaking from my personal experience - which is the only subject I have a right to speak on - I could use a cash payment more than food stamps in my everyday life, provided it was at least as generous as what I presently get. There's no flexibility in traditional welfare programmes, and there are things I could do with money that I can't do with food stamps without defrauding the system (purchasing a used car to help find a job, for example).

That said, in no way is a guaranteed minimum income a panacea to my problems as a member of the "precariat". Until I have a stake in the means of production, I don't really have anything.

[ComradeAllende]

Whatever "socialists" propagate worthless UBI schemes are shit socialists. What socialists are in favour of that fucking crap? Who was it again was in favour of it--Milton Friedman, that renowned socialist? Or was it Hayek? I constantly mix up which of those tossers was big on basic income, but it was one of them.

Technically, the UBI has been supported by both socialists and libertarians/conservatives; each side just has its own version that caters to its "interests". And it was Friedman who advocated for it in the form of a negative income tax.

UBI is nothing but a capitalist state effort to further demolish what of social welfare still remain from the long-dead era of social-democracy and save on expenditure; take for example that horrendous Finnish plan, the intention of which is the ultimate abolition of other benefits--this goes also for the recently discussed equally revolting shitty plan for New Zeeland. In both cases these "basic incomes" are also extremely low. How the hell this austerity project of Austrian economists became a pet project of the stupid liberal left is a fucking mystery.

I would say that it's more of a reformist/social democratic strategy, least in Europe during the late 20th century. In America, the UBI tends to be touted by the libertarians (whose presence is marginally stronger than us in terms of voting strength, and significantly stronger than ours in terms of ideological influence on mainstream discussion) who want to abolish the welfare state and the social bureaucracy that sustains it. Libertarians want a UBI to essentially replace public goods and subject those goods to privatization and market forces, whereas reformists want a UBI alongside public provisions to improve the living standards of the working class and use it as a vehicle to "give birth" to socialism, much like enclosures and markets within feudal communities gave birth to capitalism. Also, a UBI coexisting with public provisions would heighten the economic contradictions within a capitalist economy and thus pit the capitalist class against the working classes, thus facilitating a revolutionary class consciousness that can make greater demands. Not saying I necessarily agree with it (after all, it's more likely that capitalist countries will simply cut back existing programs), just that there is a genuine socialist case for the UBI.