Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 14:12:58 +0000
Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: welfare states


> Date:          Tue, 14 Jan 1997 10:21:52 -0500
> To:            marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
> From:          dhenwood-AT-panix.com (Doug Henwood)
> Subject:       M-I: welfare states
> Reply-to:      marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU

> At 1:35 PM 1/14/97, Robert Malecki wrote:
> 
> >My understanding of the polish events and why I could go out on the first of
> >May with a leaflett where on one side we were calling for a general strike
> >here in Sweden and on the other side defending the line on Poland was in
> >fact a vital propaganda message to the working class who was beginning to
> >mobilise against the then bougeois offensive on the Swedish "welfare state".
> 
> I'm always mystified by this sort of thing. On the one hand, orthodox
> Marxists generally regard welfare state measures as small beer, and in some
> cases, harmful (through co-optation) to the class struggle. On the other
> hand, though, most orthodox Marxists, like Malecki here, are quick to
> defend the welfare state against attacks on it.
> 
> My own line is that, however tepid, welfare state measures reduce work
> discipline and temper the rule of money, and must be counted as a good
> thing. That's why capitalists hate welfare states, and only grant such
> concessions under duress (like the threat of something far worse). Does
> this make me a hopeless Menshevik?
> 
> Doug
> 
Doug, I think welfare states are first, capitalist states.  That 
excludes the idea of welfare states becoming socialist states. Second 
they are interventionist states which suite the bosses so long as the 
drain of state spending on profits is not a net drain. So in the 
post-war period the welfare state came into being mainly, but also 
partly as the result of pressure from below, to operate Keynesian 
counter-tendencies to falling profits. While they could do so by 
moderating business cycles, and sustaining full employment more cheaply 
than the market, the bosses tolerated, even promoted them. But 
state spending on countering crisis ulitimately fails 
(because the state cannot  substitute for the capitalist to create 
value and prevent the TRPF) and leads to stagflation and a net drain 
on profits. At which time the bosses suddenly remember that the 
welfare state is an evil thing and has to be smashed.  Marxists critically 
defend the welfare state as a gain for workers since it tends to boost 
jobs and incomes, but without ever conveying the impression that 
it is capable of overcoming the basic contradiction of capital. 

Dave.
  


     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---