Welfare state

Does being against the welfare state make me spooked? I honestly it causes more harm than good.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=0cEzK5Mz0OA.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Welfare state is the perfect example of treating symptoms instead of causes.

you're less spooked than me, comrade

objectively, there's no reason why people who don't work shouldn't die. yet I want to force the workers to pay for those leeches using the power of the state simply because I'm spooked and think murder is wrong. you clearly see through it, but I unfortunately am stuck on this side and cannot join you.

You reduce the working week to solve that you dork.

Where does that come into it?

Of course not. That the welfare state even needs to exist is an important criticism of capitalism.

Getting rid of the welfare state would be accelerationist

It makes you a bit spooked tbh. Welfare programs treat the symptoms of capitalism, but they don't themselves cause harms. When you remove the more visible symptoms of capitalism more subtle ones are uncovered.

tankies

They enslave individuals to the state while using them to make up the reserve army of labor in order to drive wages and labor power down. All of this from the stolen labor of the workers.

Lolno. They may placate the workers, but giving workers more material resources hardly drives labor power down, and it definitely doesn't enslave them.

He who does not work does not eat

This. /thread

it's spooked to be for or against the welfare state for any reason but revolutionary perspectives.

Even under socialism that doesn't necessarily hold fam. I think a more correct formulation of this is actually: "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" :^)

Its the best system there is. Capitalism combined with large public sector.
T. Living in a rich social democratic country

The welfare state precisely exists because there's such an enormous surplus and so little relative work that you can afford to keep a non-working demographic alive. There is not enough work to go around, so not everyone can or needs to have a job, yet you still want the non-working proles to be around so they can create downward pressure on wages. Welfare is not UBI, it is not universally given to all, only to the poor and under/unemployed. It enslaves them because it takes away any independence or ability to say "no". If you're on welfare you cannot bite the hand that feeds you, or refuse to comply with its demands.

What the fuck's the point of allowing rent and advertising?

Meeting the basic needs of the workers reduces the downward pressure that unemployment creates tho.
Yeah, pretty sure you're thinking of how the American welfare state operates and even there porky is trying to get rid of it. Welfare was a concession that porky made to the left during the great depression era and now they're trying to use austerity to take it away.

There needs to be a balance between private and public property. The most important aspect of a society should be in state control but advertising etc is just some random shit that is not important.

We used to have this "emergency work" for unemployed that they did for food and very small wage. I would like to have it back so the unemployed did not leech from society like a fucking porky.

Yes the welfare state is stupid. Imagine forcing somebody to give you money, only making them beg you constantly to pay for little things for them, instead of just leaving them to their shit and letting them organise it themselves.

Yes, you're spooked, a proper egoist recognizing his self-interest would just fake a mental illness in order to get autismbux from the state as paid by retards like and
In fact there are already many people on chans who practice this.

spooked

If you want to abolish the welfare state before abolishing capitalism there are basically two options: You're a cunt, or you're an idiot.


This would be the case even without a welfare state, you'd just make people's lives a hell of a lot harder.


Yeah this seems reasonable.


While I'm a full supporter of a jobs garuntee (albeit paid minimum wage instead of this fucking fetishism over making people suffer and live threadbare.), it's laughable to compare the status of the unemployed to porky.

fug

We're not talking about Capitalism though. In Socialism everybody has work.

...

You might not be, others clearly are.
(Though starving the disabled and the obscenely old under socialism is still 10/10 social policy.)

Socialism > social democracy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> american liberalism

They're only met if they cannot provide it for themselves with a job.

If there's 10 workers but only 5 full time jobs, then there's going to be very intense competition for those jobs. Ultimately there will be 5 workers who are unemployed and will have to emigrate, become homeless, or die. Any of those options ends with those 5 workers dropping out of the labor force, ending the intense competition for the current jobs. If those workers can kept around, then that can keep the labor power down. Welfare has to be kept at a certain level where people would prefer to have a job then be on welfare, otherwise it would defeat its purpose. Without welfare and the reserve army of labor the level of employment would be about the same, but labor power would be significantly greater.

>Workers will compete harder to get off welfare than they will to not fucking die
ah yes this seems eminently reasonable.

It's not necessarily quite as extreme as that. They don't need to die to not be in the local labor force. Emigrating or becoming homeless is equivalent to dying in the labor market. Without welfare they'd compete extremely hard for a little bit, then barely at all later, without mentioning how much social upheaval they're be without welfare.

Now, of course welfare isn't completely positive for the Capitalist. It does decrease labor competition in the present without it, and it does cut into their profits. But in the long term it is absolutely essential to the system because there simply just isn't enough work for everyone to have a full time job, because of that, if there's nothing keeping the worker alive or around, they'll disappear, eliminating labor competition.

They won't disappear, they'll turn to crime, they'll beg (which in a society without welfare, would cease to remove them from the labour force because this again empowers capitalists to fire workers more easily.) and they'll go to jail (where they'll likely be used as forced labour sooner or later.)

Which is to say nothing of the fact that welfare creates a bargaining floor for workers. Nobody is going to work for less than what they'll get on welfare, but when the alternative is homelessness or crime many people are going to find they don't have much choice. The numbers who'll literally die are small: The numbers who'll do crazy things to avoid death are much larger.

i only left for three days. what the fuck happened

This looks like improper usage of the neo-Hegelian spook concept.

Either way if you are a communist you should ultimately oppose the welfare state, first to simply to stand in opposition to capital's centralization, but also because the welfare state is a component of capitalism and a consciously bourgeois anti-communist one: youtube.com/watch?v=0cEzK5Mz0OA.

I didn't imply they'd disappear as individuals, just as workers part of the labor force.
Which means they're no longer part of the labor force.
Charity could not sustain the current number of people on welfare. Especially since that charity would be mostly coming from the poorer part of the population.
And in a sense, that'd basically be mandatory workfare. Their needs would be met by taxation, but they'd still be part of the work force.
Welfare standards would already be the bargaining floor for workers. Workers in general have to be paid at least enough to survive and have a family. A worker won't take a job if means he'll still be homeless.
That's true, but like I said, absence of welfare only decreases labor power in the immediate, but once all the unemployed have emigrated, become criminals, homeless, or died, then the labor power increases beyond pre-welfare levels.

Welfare does not need to exist if everyone can get a job, nor does it exist in any significant, lifelong decree in such countries.

They're still in the reserve army of labour.
Criminals who don't get caught can still apply for normal jobs. They're still in the reserve army for practical purposes if they so choose. This is the epitome of policy-based-"evidence".
So we're back to exterminism.
Making the whole thing an exercise in pointlessness. Right, we won't get the state to subsidize you doing nothing - but we'll get the state to subsidize you working at an even lower level. If we're lucky you'll get shanked and no longer be part of the labour force.
He will if he gets to eat better.
Only emigration or death increases labour power. (And in the modern world of outsourcing even the former is arguably dubious, the whole point of the move towards it being to ensure the "local" labour pool is the global labour pool.) It's absolutely laughable to believe that people who steal loaves of bread to get by aren't going to take a job when porky offers it.
Capitalism has no tendency to full employment so this doesn't mean much.

And another thing: Before the modern welfare state there were always the workhouses. Practical politics dictates that - again - abolishing welfare is just going to make things worse. Porky isn't just going to go "ah, let's allow free bargaining" when he can offer the absolute minimum where people slave in prison-like conditions for the crime of being poor and be viewed as a saint for saving them from death. (Unless you believe in modern labour protection laws combined with a "fuck you i've got mine" state.)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workhouse

additional point:
The pretty little model of fixed labour also fails to take account of births, when your options as an old person are to emigrate, to steal, to go to jail or to die the incentives to have 5 kids in the hope that 2 will get a job and support you in old age are much higher. (Even if pensions are retained, pensionable age is still going up and there's a risk of becoming infirm long before you're eligible to claim.)

I meant both.
Your point was the individual is still around, it's just now they're living from crime, and my point is once you turn to crime to survive you've decided that crime is your job and as such you're no longer part of the reserve army of labor. You're either a criminal or a regular worker in this instance. You might be employed while doing some crime on the side, but if you're a full time criminal, then crime is your job.
I'm not sure what you mean. Charity just couldn't support everyone now on welfare, either at all or at significantly worst standards than the welfare state.
That's already how a lot of welfare is now. Those employed and on welfare are being subsidized. A large forced labor force would basically be a violent form of welfare.
The proletariat in general has to be paid a living wage, which includes enough for housing, and enough to have a family. An individual could accept a shitty job that just means he eats today, but he'd be an exception.
That's not a sustainable way to deal with under employment. Those people are at a significant risk of going to prison or dying. Nor does it benefit porky any, since crime cuts into profits as much as welfare, even if the crime just affects the proles, since those proles now have less wages to spend stuff on or keep their family alive.
Workhouses did actual work though. They didn't exist because of a lack of work, the reason why welfare exists now. If welfare was eliminated and replaced by workhouses, then it'd either be state subsidized employment (still welfare) or state owned businesses (which couldn't run at a profit if there's literally not enough work to be done).

That's trying to somehow transfer the reason poor third worlders have children to a modern first world economy where there's no jobs. In the third world, if your children survive to adulthood, then they're set, and you need at least one to keep you alive when you're old. In a world of under employment you couldn't make that assumption, and your children certainly wouldn't since they'd have to look out for themselves and when they're old. Korea is a great example of significant elder poverty yet they don't have that third world strategy.

Ultimately it seems like your position is that welfare was something the bourgeoisie had to be strong armed into giving for the benefit of the workers, which of course you'd have to believe to be a "As much welfare as possible" Social Democrat. But it's clear that welfare isn't a particularly nice existence to offer an alternative to a regular job, nor does it increase worker bargaining power by acting as minimal since plenty of workers are employed and on it. Ultimately the only thing that makes sense is that welfare exists to subsidize the employers and to deal with a significant lack of work.

no, it just makes you wrong.

Which is stupid, because people can transfer jobs and crime is a job that's actively persecuted.
We're back to having people die off.
Or else what?
If they got to prison they're just going to wind up working. If they die, well, we're back to exterminism…
Well yeah, Porky (save for a few full-retard ancaps) generally only advocates cutting the welfare state - you're the one advocating we abolish it.
Work can always be created. They randomly transitioned to getting old people to sew blankets in some cases because they realized you can essentially always sell shit.
No, it's digging up the problems of local unemployment in first world economies decades ago.

Not really. Fordism could easily make accommodations, although if you look at say - Germany - then that's basically the case. The bourgeoisie were told "It's welfare or it's being beheaded", and they believed it. (In practice I have my doubts that most of the revolutions would've gone beyond shooting a bunch of proles - so yet again we're back to exterminism.)

It's better than behind handed literally nothing and being told to get on a boat to fucking patagonia or die. The idea that housing has to be provided or people will simply refuse to work is laughable. The idea that people have to be able to afford a family to work is even more laughable. More plausible however is the idea that - in the absence of a minimum wage - nobody would work for the pitiful amount that vestigial welfare states give you when they could tell you to fuck off and go on the dole. (This is simply masked by the existence of a minimum wage.)
Furthermore *Keynesian hat on* Welfare = more money for consumption in an economic downturn (as the huge drop off in business spending is compensated by increased state spending) = stimulated aggregate demand = MORE JOBS.
There are different types of welfare. In-work welfare is a completely different thing. (And usually a clusterfuck established by neoliberals who just can't bare the thought of giving people "money for nothing.")

Additional tangent: A generous welfare state is an amazing tool for creating musicians, again creating more jobs than would otherwise exist. Pics related.

there will still be a welfare state under socialism if by that you mean, public healthcare, retirement and so on

...

Stirner wouldn't want to be dependent on the state. The whole point is to ignore the state and "do your own thing" pretty much. As for cutting other people's welfare: He wouldn't give a shit.

this