>At 3:28 PM -0500 20/11/04, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>>I wouldn't have said "I'm a socialist" on the Moyers show, because either
>>the segman wouldn't have run or the audience would have stopped
>>listening. I'd happily say it here, or on WBAI, or in some other forum
>>where it wouldn't result in censorship or loss of audience interest.
>>[Doug Henwood]
>
>There's not much point in just asserting "I'm a socialist" to people who
>don't know what socialism means, but there is a point in explaining what
>it means. So you could say "I'm in favour of economic security for all"
>and "I'm in favour of economic, as well as political, democracy". You then
>sum it up by adding "In a word, socialism." [Bill Bartlett]
>
>>I am for a welfare state. I wouldn't say I believe in "economic rights"
>>becuase I don't know what that means. But a stronger welfare state would
>>be good for the working class and would bring us several steps closer to
>>the decommodification of life. [Doug Henwood]
>
>A "welfare state" of course is, by implication, a capitalist state.
>Although there are as many different kinds of "welfare state" as there are
>different kinds of capitalism, I'm not there has ever been or can ever be
>any other kind of capitalist state than a welfare state. The trouble is
>that, if history teaches us anything, it teaches us that a capitalist
>welfare state can never mean economic security for all, because economic
>INsecurity for most people is an absolute pre-condition for capitalism to
>function. Few people would argue with that proposition and it explains
>what is wrong with capitalism.
>
>So being in favour of a welfare state is being in favour of a capitalist
>state.
>
>Bill Bartlett
>Bracknell Tas
Who says a welfare state must be capitalist besides you?
John Thornton