longwayhome
Posts: 1035
Joined: 1/9/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick
Yeah, like I thought, you can't actually name or list any of these imaginary socialist influences. Just a head's up, the welfare state is anti-socialist, by definition. Turns out your knowledge of political terminology, while broader than that of the Yanks, is just as shallow.
The concept of the welfare state was progressed in Europe after the Great War (1914-18) by the fading liberal parties but more enthusiastically by the Communist, Socialist and Labour parties in the inter-war period. In the case of the self-styled Communist and Socialist parties it was allied to a desire to shift control over the means of production from the bourgeoisie to the proletariat.
Rather than being a way of allowing capitalism to survive by mitigating its worst social effects, these parties saw it as an essential part of protecting workers during a transition to a society where people drew from the social fund according to their work or need.
Historically at least the welfare state was not intended by left wing parties in Europe as something to prop up or maintain capitalism but as a form of social support available to workers as part of a state which would be run by democratic principles taking account of workers organisations and the will of the people. The relationship between socialism and democracy at that time was very different given that many countries were only moving towards universal male and female suffrage, something that the democratic socialists of western Europe thought would create a more socialist political system. It did indeed do this, in Europe at least, but it was not a permanent or absolute shift so many socialist parties became caught up in mitigation of the effects of capitalism as the most realistic way of supporting the vulnerable.
In essence then a welfare state in not necessarily socialist or anti-socialist. It is all about social, economic and historical context.
As a socialist I would prefer to see a right to work, which could obviate the need for a welfare state as such, and would arguably be closer to Marx's concept of workers drawing from the social fund. It does however raise questions about supporting the sick and infirm, as well as those who refuse to contribute. The danger is that when you try to address these problems you end up with a set of rules which start to feel very like a welfare state, albeit in a different guise, whether it is a universal minimum living wage or some other form of innovative personal and family support.
In any case, Sweden is absolutely a capitalist country. It does however have a form of social organisation, unionism, and a form of long-termism in its economic activity that flows from a partnership between unions and businesses that has benefits both for the businesses and for the workers, who receive a greater share of the profits of their labour whilst having a social safety net.
I would not call this socialism. It is neither unfettered capitalism or true socialism, but it is a long way from the way that both the UK and the US are organised socially and economically. What it does not represent is a reorganisation of society and economy into autonomous allied worker run cells or communes, but rather a socialist influenced mitigation of capitalism by promoting greater partnership. What you are left with is a different flavour of capitalism, which some socialists distrust because they believe that in conniving to make capitalism bearable, it perpetuates the very thing they seek to supersede.
Whether as a socialist you look upon a Scandinavian model (including their welfare provisions) as being a good or bad thing depends on how pragmatic you are. Socialism it is not, but then one of the key battles of 20th century socialism was about achieving what was immediately democratically possible against the potentially uncertain benefits of revolutionary change (revolutionary with a small "r" to avoid getting into sterile arguments about the Russian and Chinese experiences).
Certain manifestations of the "welfare state" can certainly therefore be "anti-socialist" in the way that you say but the concept of a welfare state is not per se anti-socialist. That is why many socialists in Europe largely want to reform rather than destroy their welfare states.
Whether that intent immediately bars them from referring to themselves as socialist depends how exclusive you want to be about the term "socialist". After all socialists have a nasty habit of spending as much time fighting with other socialists as they do seeking social and economic reform.
And I say that as someone who considers myself to be a socialist.
|
RE: The Swedish socialist utopia - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread