andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> It makes no sense to speak of that, huh? I recall one
> Karl Marx, 19th century German emigre, you may have
> heard if him, explaining that under the first stage of
> communism (and presumably under the higher stage too)
> those unable to work will be provided for. Now by what
> means will this happen at least at the lower stage, if
> we pretend that at the higher stage there is no state,
> if not via something that should be called a welfare
> state?
With the working class ruling clearly such a state will attempt to provide for the welfare of all of its residents. But come off it. For around 50 years anyhow the words "Welfare State" have been used to describe generally the immediate goals of struggle within capitalist states. I can imagine, in a working socialist state, there being battles around whether a particular need of a particular set of residents was being fulfilled. I can't imagine "Defend the Welfare State" being on the banner of a political party or movement inside such a state! Such a slogan would make sense in Sweden (whether an effective slogan is another question), but would not make too much sense even in a capitalist state such as contemporary Venezuela where capitalism is under pressure.
We really are talking about diction here, not political issues, which are being obscured (which is what sloppy diction does).
(To Ian: my "D?" -- which should have been "d?" - referred to diction, not a grade. I'm still sticking to it in the present context. Calling a socialist state a "Welfare State" is sloppy diction, and confuses political debate.
Carrol
>
> --- joanna bujes <jbujes at covad.net> wrote:
>
> > Wait, he's right. It makes no sense whatsoever to
> > speak of a "welfare
> > state" under socialism.